Lords Sitting of 19 February 1979

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: THE LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.

MEXICAN OIL PRODUCTION AND BRITISH COMPANIES
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, how they envisage British companies allied to Mexican companies participating in oil exploration and production in Mexico.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, there is no question of British companies being involved in oil exploration and production in Mexico, as this is carried out exclusively by the Mexican State Oil Corporation. British companies are, however, seeking to identify opportunities that may arise in conjunction with Mexican interests to supply specialised equipment and services to the Corporation.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. May I ask him whether he can give the House an assurance that any undertakings to supply equipment, or whatever, to the Mexican oil industry will not be monopolised either by the nationalised oil company in Mexico or by the nationalised oil company in Britain?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the United Kingdom offshore capability is based on experience gained in the difficult conditions of the North Sea, and in consequence British companies can offer a range of specialised services required for offshore oil development work. With regard to the British National Oil Corporation, its current overseas activities are almost entirely those of an international oil trader.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would supplement his kindly and fairly informative answer with this further information: Is it the case that the British National Oil Corporation is itself organised in syndicates of supplying firms to assist in its operations abroad?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, in the first instance this would be a matter for the Corporation, but any activities beyond the role of oil trader would require the consent of the Secretary of State for Energy.

RACE RELATIONS AND BROADCASTING
2.38 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that the Director of Public Prosecutions does not consider a broadcasting studio to be a public place within the meaning of the Public Order Act 1936 and whether they consider that amendments to that Act, and to the Race Relations Act 1976, should be brought before Parliament as a matter of urgency so that a person using words that are threatening, abusive or insulting such that hatred is likely to be stirred up against any racial group in Great Britain on the air can be prosecuted.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, the Government are aware that the Director of Public Prosecutions has expressed the opinion to which the noble Lord refers. The BBC and the Independent Broadcasting Authority already have to ensure, so far as possible, that nothing is included in their broadcast programmes which is likely to encourage or incite to crime or lead to disorder or to be offensive to public feeling. It may occasionally—for example, in a live unscripted broadcast—be difficult for the broadcasting authorities to carry out this requirement. The Government are not at present convinced that legislation is the appropriate answer, but they will give

1519
further consideration to the matter, in consultation with the broadcasting authorities.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. Does he not think, however, that if people who appear on radio and television programmes are aware that anything that they say is immune from prosecution, under either the Public Order Act or the Race Relations Act, this will encourage them to give themselves up to the most extreme sentiments? Is the noble Lord aware that the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality has said that this revelation by the Director of Public Prosecutions could have serious implications? Will he, therefore, in consultation with the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality and the broadcasting authorities, examine this matter as a question of urgency?
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I can certainly confirm that in examining this matter—which, as I have already indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, we shall be doing—we shall take into consideration some of the very points which the noble Lord has mentioned. The noble Lord has pinpointed a particular problem in relation to broadcasting which it appears, on first examination at any rate, Parliament did not grapple with in all the discussions that took place both here and in another place when this legislation was passing through Parliament. So I, for one, am grateful to the noble Lord for having drawn everybody's attention, both Houses of Parliament included, to this particular point. There are certain differences between the kind of safeguards which the Public Order Act 1936, as amended by the Race Relations Act 1976, aimed at, in particular the possibility of imminent violence arising either as a result of something said in the street or as a result of something said on the public platform. There is a difference, of course, between that and broadcasting. Having said that, certainly I undertake to take into account what the noble Lord has said.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, does not the Minister agree with me that part of the trouble at least arises because the television authorities go out of their
1520
way to find extreme views in order to make the programme, in their view, more interesting? Is not this something which the Government and the BBC should be considering?
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I do not know whether I go all the way with what the noble Lord has said, in particular about broadcasting authorities going out of their way to encourage such people to take part. I should not have thought that that was the case. Indeed, Parliament has laid very severe restrictions indeed, among the ones which I mentioned in my original Answer, upon both the broadcasting organisations to make sure that the public are safeguarded. However, when I examine this question I shall bear in mind what the noble Lord has said. So far as sanctions are concerned, there is always an ultimate sanction, which Parliament has provided for.

CABINET PAPERS: SAFETY OF FOREIGNERS
2.42 p.m.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the rule allowing Cabinet papers to be made public after 30 years does not place any foreign nationals, whose names may appear as having worked in cooperation with this country at the end of the war, in danger of reprisals in their own country.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, the Public Records Acts provide for the prescription of a longer period of closure than 30 years for any particular class of records, and it would be normal to prescribe a longer period in any case of the kind mentioned in the Question.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that reply. May I ask him whether he can confirm that as yet the Government have had no evidence that any person in the

1521
position such as I described in the Question has in fact suffered in his own country as a result of our making public our Cabinet papers?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am happy to give that assurance, but one must always be watchful for the interests of those whose continued existence, in the light of information that might be disclosed from the records, might not be agreeable to certain foreign Governments.
Lord FLETCHER: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that, at a time when the period was reduced from 50 to 30 years, the matter was fully considered by a number of committees and the Government were aware that the reduction to 30 years might expose British nationals as well as foreign nationals to some risk of criticism, but it was thought that the interests of public disclosure were such as to outweigh those disadvantages?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my noble friend has analysed the issues very clearly, but to implement the decision is sometimes a little difficult.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, does not the risk arise, especially where foreigners are concerned, when the papers of Government Departments are published 30 years later, and when they are transferred to the Public Records Office after weeding? Can the noble and learned Lord give an assurance that this hazard will be taken fully into account during the weeding process, and particularly as the children and grandchildren of a foreign national might well have reprisals taken against them after a considerable period of time?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think I can assure the noble Lord that this consideration is very much borne in mind. I think we have an honourable record of not letting down our friends in matters of this kind; a record which I hope will be maintained.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, would the noble and learned Lord not agree that the great danger is that the weeding might be too unscrupulous?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not know about the word "unscrupulous"; I am not sure that I can say that, but an inquiry has been set up with a distinguished membership to look into the operation and mechanism of the Public Records Acts. But I adhere to what I said previously. I do not think there have been any problems in the particular field of a foreign national whose activities here, if disclosed, might give him trouble, either personally or through his family. I do not think that has arisen and I am sure that the Departments will bear it in mind.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, while agreeing completely with what the noble and learned Lord said about our record, may I ask whether the matter does not arise now because it was comparatively recently that the 30-year period was introduced in place of the 50-year period?
The LORD CHANCELLOR?: Yes, my Lords; I think that is so and, if I may say so, I think it was most helpful for the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, to have tabled this Question, so that the minds of the Departments may be alerted to the need for precautions.

PARLIAMENTARY PENSIONS: REVIEW
2.47 p.m.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government on what date the question of "reckon-able service" arising out of the debate on the Parliamentary Pensions Bill in 1977–78 (now the Act of 1978) was referred to the Top Salaries Review Body in accordance with the undertaking made during the passage of the Bill.
The Lord PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My right honourable friend the Prime Minister wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, chairman of the Top Salaries Review Body, on 23rd October 1978 asking him to review and make recommendations on the pension position of former Members

1523
of the House of Commons who left the House before the passing of the Parliamentary Pensions Act 1978.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his reply and particularly for the helpful part he has played in obtaining this Answer, may I ask him whether he will now, in accordance with his own promise, approach the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, to give some priority to the matter in order that the widows of former Members of Parliament may get some benefit immediately?
Lord PEART: My Lords, my noble friend will realise that the timing of a discussion on this subject is a matter for the review body. After all, the Prime Minister has communicated with the chairman, and I think that is as far as I can go at this stage. We regard it as an urgent matter.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether it is not a fact that from the very outset the Boyle Committee set itself against granting any pensions at all—years ago—to Members of Parliament who sat there before the year 1964, some for many years; since when many of them—perhaps the majority—have died? To my certain knowledge some of them have died in penury; and, in the circumstances, would it not be better not to pursue this matter for the sake of the handful of those who remain, but to try to forget it?
Lord PEART: My Lords, the noble Lord has put a point of view; but I think he will remember that we had a debate on this subject and we promised that this matter would be raised again. So that is the position; it is now being examined.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Leader of the House assure us that the case of that handful of ex-Ministers who, in the matter of pensions, have been so badly treated in comparison with Her Majesty's Government's present Ministers, has also been referred to the top review body?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I know that the noble Viscount spoke on this during
1524
our debate and the main argument was on the issue of pensions. If it is possible to have this added to the other matter, I am prepared to look at it; but the Prime Minister has fulfilled a promise and I would prefer to leave it at that. We asked for this and it is being examined.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, from my recollection of the debate I think that the noble Lord himself said that these particular people would be referred.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I will make sure that that promise is fulfilled in the sense that they will consider this, but the main issue is the pensions issue.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the Government will intimate that they think this matter ought to be dealt with, that the people concerned may in some instances be in a very bad state and their widows in a similar bad state, and that really it is a disgraceful thing that people who, in many instances, have served for so many years should, even in the few instances that are left, be treated in this way?
Lord PEART: My Lords, may I say this in reply to my noble friend: After all, we were asked to do this and we have done it; the Prime Minister has done this. What more do noble Lords want?
Lord BOOTHBY: An Answer from Lord Boyle. When—1993?
Lord PEART: The noble Lord, Lord Boothby, was against it.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Lord PEART: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Lord Hughes to advance the Committee stage of the Countryside (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill from Thursday 29th March to Tuesday 20th February.—(Lord Peart.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GREATER MANCHESTER BILL [H.L.]
2.51 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that the Greater Manchester Bill be now read a second time. As your Lordships will see from the Order Paper, there are four Private Bills down for Second Reading this afternoon, and I think perhaps it might be convenient if I said a word or two about the procedure, as it is somewhat complicated. I intend to move the Second Reading of each of the four Bills one after the other, and, of course, any noble Lord who wishes to speak on the Motion that the Bill be read a second time is perfectly at liberty to do so in the normal way. But not until the Second Reading is agreed can any of the Instructions be moved. So, as soon as the Second Reading of this Bill, the Greater Manchester Bill, has been agreed, the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, will be called to move his Instruction. That, too, can be debated, and when that has been disposed of then the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, will move his, and finally the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will move his. Once the Instructions are dealt with, then we shall move on to the Second Reading of the next Bill, the Isle of Wight Bill.>
May I briefly remind your Lordships of the background and purpose of these four Bills. The Local Government Act 1972 established new local government areas in England and Wales, and in Section 262 enacted the repeal, with certain exceptions, of provisions contained in Private Acts at present in force in those areas or parts of them. The powers conferred by those Private Acts will cease to have effect in metropolitan counties at the end of this year and in other counties at the end of 1984 unless they have been re-enacted by other legislation. The 1972 Act provided a unique opportunity for a thorough revision of all local legislation and, from 1984 onwards, local legislation will be well documented and much more readily understandable by the public.
The first major Bill promoted to retain provisions repealed by the 1972 Act was the County of South Glamorgan Bill in 1975, and that was followed last
1526
Session by four more Bills of the same type, the Cheshire County Council Bill, the County of Merseyside Bill, the West Midlands County Council Bill and the West Yorkshire Bill; those Bills passed through your Lordships' House and are now in another place. General powers Bills of this nature deal with a very large number of topics affecting a great many people and must be scrutinised with very great care. For this reason, I propose to follow the procedure which, with your Lordships' agreement, was used for the County of South Glamorgan Bill, and again last Session for the other four county council Bills, and refer the unopposed provisions to a small Select Committee consisting of two other Members of this House and myself.
Finally, may I say something regarding the Instructions to the Committees on these Bills which have been put down by various noble Lords. I can see no procedural objection to the acceptance by the House of these Instructions, which in some cases reinforce points made in petitions against the Bills. Since all the Bills are opposed, they and the petitions against them will be considered by Select Committees, which will also have to comply with any Instructions which may be passed by your Lordships this afternoon. According to usual practice, Government Departments concerned with provisions in any of these Bills will report on them, and those reports will also be before the Committees. My Lords, I beg to move that the Greater Manchester Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Aberdare.)
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I wish to draw attention to a question raised in a petition on this Bill. The petition has been lodged by the General Council and Register of Osteopaths by way of objection to the provisions of Part XVI, which is concerned with establishments for massage and special treatment. The object is to maintain satisfactory conditions at sauna bath establishments and the like by strict control of standards, to prevent them degenerating into houses of ill repute. This laudable intention is not new, and attempts have been made in the past to apply similar powers to the premises of members of the General Council and

1527
Register of Osteopaths, who seek to amend the Bill so as expressly to exclude its application to members of the Register. It is, however, my understanding that the promoters of the Bill are prepared to amend the Bill, though negotiations on the form of the amendment have still to be concluded and agreement reached. Once a satisfactory settlement has been concluded, the Petition will be withdrawn and all opposition dropped.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I wonder whether the House would allow me to intervene at this point. We are in a rather complicated situation. As I am responsible for drawing up the list of speakers, and as my office was not always sure whether Peers wished to speak on Instructions or on the Second Reading of the Bill, I think it is possible that the list of speakers may be rather confusing. Perhaps, as the Lord Chairman has said, it will be best if those Peers wishing to speak on the Second Readings of the Bills will speak first and then we could hear those who wish to speak on the Instructions later. We have now passed the Second Reading of this Bill. If the House would now like to proceed straight to the Instructions, then I am quite prepared to do that. Would it be the wish of the Front Bench opposite and of the Liberal Front Bench that we now proceed to the Instructions?
Lord HEWLETT: My Lords, could I ask the Leader of the House whether that does not prevent a speaker in the debate speaking against the Instruction?
Lord PEART: No, my Lords.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this: I put my name down too late to get on to the list. The point I wish to make is a distinctly Second Reading point, not against the Bill itself, but a point which arose on an Instruction to us when we were sitting on the Committees last year on the other Bills, and which is very apposite to these particular Bills.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, we have now
1528
passed the Second Reading of this Bill, so I think we should now speak on the Instructions. The noble Lord can speak on the Second Reading of another Bill, of course.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I have put down my name to speak on the Isle of Wight Bill, and I am on the list of speakers on the Greater Manchester Bill. Privileged though that is, should I now wait for the Isle of Wight Bill before I speak.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, my Lords.
3 p.m.
Lord SANDYS Lord SANDYS rose to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that:

(a) they should give special consideration to Clause 192 (Prohibition of parking of caravans and boats in front gardens) having regard to the fact that during the Session 1977–78 similar clauses in four County Council Bills were deleted by the Select Committee on Opposed Common Clauses for the reasons cited in paragraph 30 of the Special Report (H.L. 137) made by the Committee to this House, and

(b) they should take into account the burden that will be imposed on those whose interests are opposed to the clause if in the course of the re-enactment of local authority legislation following local government reorganisation the clear decision of the Select Committee as set out in the said paragraph 30 is not followed by subsequent promoters.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think that it would be for the convenience of the House if your Lordships would permit a degree of latitude when speaking to these Instructions, because there may well be a number of your Lordships who will wish to raise points, as I do myself, which go a little beyond the precise terms of the Instructions. In addressing your Lordships on the Bill I should like to refer back almost 12 months to a similar occasion on 28th February last year when we examined the four County Council Bills referred to by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees; namely, the Merseyside Bill, the West

1529
Yorkshire Bill, the West Midlands Bill and the County of Cheshire Bill. Once again we are faced with a very substantial Bill which is largely a Consolidation Bill comprising a large number of Acts, notably 90 Acts which are partially repealed and only one Act which is wholly repealed, covering the last 150 years.
I read with interest an Explanatory Memorandum which is not attached to the Bill but for which I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Clitheroe for providing, which deals in detail with the clauses in the Bill. The principal point which the Greater Manchester Council raise in their memorandum is as follows:
"The Greater Manchester authorities are of the opinion that there is a large corpus of valuable local law which has not been overtaken by national legislation. If action were not now to be taken to preserve it, that whole body of law would be lost automatically at the end of 1979".
That is perfectly true because, if we examine the terms of the Local Government Act 1972, it will be apparent from Section 262 that all local statutory provision will cease to have effect in the metropolitan counties at the end of 1979—of course that concerns this Bill—and elsewhere by 1984. It was not appreciated in 1972 what a mammoth task that would be, and so it has proved.
However, I should like to refer especially to the situation which arises on my Instruction. I should like to introduce the point by reverting to what was said a year ago regarding the four metropolitan county Bills. Unhappily, we have a recurrence here. On that occasion I moved an Instruction in precisely similar terms to that which I propose to move today. In their wisdom, the drafters and promoters of the Greater Manchester Bill have sought to bring in a clause which relates to exactly the same area. I should like to refer to that particular clause; namely, Clause 192. Their notes on this clause are not very explicit and I shall quote them. Clause 192 relates to the prohibition of parking of caravans and boats in front gardens. The notes on that clause from Greater Manchester are as follows:
"This follows the same lines as the preceding clause, but relates to a different kind of subject-matter. Commercial vehicles"—
that is the clause above—
"are to be controllable, because they represent a business use intruding into a residential area.
1530
Caravans and boats, on the other hand, are very much an amenity in themselves".
From that note I would deduce that boats and caravans are to be welcomed in private gardens if they are an amenity in themselves. I cannot see from the note on that particular clause any suggestion that they are a disbenefit to the locality.
Referring once again to the situation as it was 12 months ago, when I moved the Instruction on that occasion the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees permitted the Instruction to go forward, and he said on the 28th February, at column 370 of the Official Report:
"Finally, I should like to say something regarding the Instructions which the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has on the Order Paper, which are directed at a provision which occurs in each Bill seeking to restrict parking in private gardens of heavy commercial vehicles, boats and caravans. His Instructions relate, in particular, to boats. I can see no procedural objection to the acceptance by the House"—
and so on. However, the point which I should like to raise is that the Select Committee examined this clause in all four Bills. The Select Committee decided to strike it out, and we are now examining a Bill in which we see once again the same clause occurring. I should like to point out to your Lordships that it is possible over the next few years—certainly during the next five years which is the period which ends in 1984—that a recurrence of this clause could happen, not once but many times. Once again the same petitioners will come forward seeking to delete the clause. Once again I, or possibly some other Members of your Lordships' House, may feel disposed to move an Instruction.
The point to be made here concerns the question of the common clauses. It has been of great benefit in the past that the common clauses should be adopted by all local authorities. Where they are not specifically obliged to do so, nevertheless they are strongly recommended to do so. It would be a very vexatious situation if, as regards Private Bills, petitioners repeatedly are obliged to petition against precisely the same clause and precisely the same matter.
In that connection, I would mention a specific point; namely, the question of parliamentary costs which arises under the Parliamentary Costs Act 1865. The House of Lords can award costs to a

1531
successful petitioner only where the Committee—that is, of course, the Committee concerned with the Private Bill—unanimously reports that the petitioner has been unreasonably or vexatiously subjected to expense in defending his rights proposed to be interfered with by the Bill. There is such a situation, therefore, if there is a unanimous decision, but let us suppose that there is not a unanimous decision by that Committee. Over and over again the petitioner, in order to protect his position, may be obliged to return to make the same point. I do not think that it is necessary to go further into the matter. I set out the details of the matter in my remarks last year and your Lordships, who were kind enough to speak on the Instruction, also made particular reference to it. The situation is unchanged and I would respectfully draw the attention of the Select Committee to the Official Report. I beg to move.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that:

(a) they should give special consideration to Clause 192 (Prohibition of parking of caravans and boats in front gardens having regard to the fact that during the Session 1977–78 similar clauses in four County Council Bills were deleted by the Select Committee on Opposed Common Clauses for the reasons cited in paragraph 30 of the Special Report (H.L. 137) made by the Committee to this House, and

(b) they should take into account the burden that will be imposed on those whose interests are opposed to the clause if in the course of the re-enactment of local authority legislation following local government reorganisation the clear decision of the Select Committee as set out in the said paragraph 30 is not followed by subsequent promoters.—[Lord Sandys.]

3.9 p.m.
Earl CATHCART: My Lords, I had thought that other noble Lords would speak before me as regards this Instruction. However, as no one has risen I rise to say that I support my noble friend Lord Sandys in his Instruction that your Lordships should require the Select Committee, to which the Greater Manchester
1532
Bill is referred, to give special consideration to Clause 192 concerning the parking of boats in the front gardens of dwelling-houses. In doing so I must declare an interest in that I am a member of the Royal Yachting Association which is one of the petitioners against this particular clause; and I must assume that my remarks also refer to caravans, as regards which I am not particularly an expert.
I must agree with my noble friend Lord Sandys that there is absolutely no need to repeat what we all said on 28th February last year, when a similar clause was proposed in Private Bills. Sufficient evidence was then produced by your Lordships to show what a very strong case existed for the petitioner's action to get that clause, dealing with the parking of boats and caravans, deleted from the Bill. Those arguments must still apply today. Although Clause 192 of the Greater Manchester Bill is drafted differently from those clauses which we considered in our Second Reading debate last year, it still imposes restrictions on the rights of individuals in their own homes.
Perhaps the most relevant of all the local authorities' requirements is that they already have sufficient powers to ensure that boats parked in front gardens do not commit a nuisance to others, and particularly to neighbours, without adding further restrictions and penalties. For example, if a boat parked in a front garden blocks the light from a neighbour's window, or if a boat parked in a front garden obstructs the view of traffic using the road—perhaps on a corner or a bend—sufficient powers exist under general law to deal with that nuisance.
In the definition of a "boat" in Clause 192 of the Bill which we are debating it gives the dimensions as "not less than 1.5 metres" high or—and I must emphasise that it says "or" and not "and"—"not less than 5 metres" long. Thus, in the debate last year, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London pointed out that a rowing skiff 18 feet long would come within this clause. It is difficult to see what nuisance that could be to anyone.
In these days, when recreation and exercise are recognised as playing such an important part in all our lives, and when we are at some risk of becoming a spectator

1533
nation, perhaps it is most relevant that every encouragement should be given to those who make the best use of their spare time, who enjoy maintaining their boats at home during the winter months and getting them ready for the next summer. Therefore, I support the Instruction of my noble friend Lord Sandys.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, not for the first time have I found myself in a procedural muddle and not risen in time to speak. I support my noble friend Lord Sandys in his Instruction, as I did last year and, like my noble friend Lord Cathcart, I declare an interest in that I am a member of the Royal Yachting Association. First, I support my noble friend Lord Sandys in everything that he has said. Furthermore, I shall not repeat what I said a year ago in your Lordships' House about similar provisions.
However, I should like to ask the noble Lord the Lord Chairman, if he is able to, to draw the attention of the Select Committee to Hansard of 28th February, where similar clauses were discussed. I should also ask whether it is possible—-and I am interested in what my noble friend Lord Sandys has already said—for those organisations, such as the one to which I belong, which have had to petition once again against this clause (which is identical to the one which your Lordships' Select Committee threw out last year) to claim costs, should your Lordships' Committee reach the same decision, as I suspect it might, as last year. If such organisations cannot, it would seem to me to be grossly unfair. No doubt the ratepayers of Manchester do not mind, or perhaps they are not even told by their council, what it will cost, but, as a member of the Royal Yachting Association, I mind quite a bit. If costs cannot be claimed, small organisations, such as the one I speak about, would be ruined. Surely there must be some way to end the ridiculous situation of them having to continue to petition against similar clauses, possibly in another 30-odd county council Bills.
I would also ask your Lordships, and in particular the noble Lord the Lord Chairman, whether there is not a case in future for a mandatory Instruction to be given on the Floor of your Lordships' House if, in future, a county council should try to repeat such a clause in a
1534
Bill. If that is not practicable, is there any other way in which county councils can be discouraged in the future? Surely the Greater Manchester County Council is acting unreasonably and vexatiously in this matter.
3.15 p.m.
Lord GREENWAY: My Lords, I, too, should like to support the Instruction of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, as indeed I did last year for the four county council Bills which we were then considering. I shall not repeat what I said on that occasion, except to say—as I am sure many of your Lordships are aware—that boating is a very fast-growing sport in this country. It is enjoyed by people from all walks of life, from the top to the bottom. If this clause were to be allowed, it would tend to discriminate against the not-so-well-off boatowner who may not necessarily be able to afford to lay up his boat in a boat yard for the winter and who, if he had a small garden, would therefore be unnecessarily penalised under this clause. In addition, most people enjoy overhauling and repainting their boats during the winter. For a council to be given powers that could prevent a person doing that, would not only be unnecessary but also an intrusion into a person's rights of enjoyment regarding his own property.
As the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and the two noble Lords who have already spoken, have said, a Select Committee of your Lordships' House has already disallowed this clause in the Bills which we discussed last year. I feel most strongly that to have to consider these matters yet again is not only wasting the time of your Lordships' House and the time of another Select Committee, but is also wasting the time and money of those who have to petition a second time against this matter. That is to be deprecated and I strongly support the Instruction of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I, too, want to say a few words in favour of the Instruction that has been moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys. As has been said, as a result of the Local Government Act, a golden opportunity was given to Parliament to reform the Private Local Acts and to make sure that there was some degree of uniformity between them. Unless

1535
we are very careful, we shall be in the process of throwing away that opportunity. A Committee of your Lordships' House has already examined very carefully the four Bills that have been mentioned—Cheshire, Merseyside, the West Midlands and West Yorkshire—and it reached the conclusion that in this particular instance:
"the evidence of nuisance is very slight and is far from establishing a need for taking local powers which would clearly be an intrusion into the rights, some long-established in law, of individuals to park in their gardens boats, caravans and vehicles incidental to the enjoyment of their dwelling. The Committee therefore disallowed the provisions to prohibit parking in private gardens in all four Bills".
If we now allow those provisions to be incorporated in this Bill or any other future Bill which comes before your Lordships' House, surely we shall create a patchwork of legislation in which people are permitted to do certain things in one area of the country and not in another, and no one will know precisely where he or she stands. If provisions of this nature are to be brought forward, they should be in Public General Acts; they should not be brought forward piecemeal by local authorities, as is being done now. It is an abuse of the privileges of local authorities to bring forward these Bills, one after another, with the same provisions, when they know that your Lordships' House and another place have already disallowed those provisions in relation to another local authority.
Therefore, I hope that not only the Greater Manchester Council but others which may be coming forward with similar provisions in the future, will get together with their parliamentary agents to look very carefully at what has been said in your Lordships' House this afternoon, so that we are not plagued with an unnecessary repetition of the same debates year after year as local authorities come forward afresh with provisions which your Lordships have already disallowed.
3.20 p.m.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, I have no interest to declare or axe to grind, but I sympathise deeply with those people who have become sufficiently prosperous now to buy themselves a boat and a caravan but, at the same time, have not got enough money to afford to leave the boat at moorings during the winter, and cannot
1536
afford hotel and boarding accommodation for their summer holiday. Their only chance of a summer holiday nowadays is to have a caravan, particularly if they have a number of children. Where else are they going to keep their caravan except in their garden? We have heard that there are ample safeguards if they are becoming a nuisance to somebody else. I think that in this increased leisure society, in which people are becoming more prosperous through increased wages and through much increased moonlighting, we should be able to allow them to keep their things in their own gardens.
The Lord Bishop of NORWICH: My Lords, I should like to support the noble and sea-going Lord, Lord Greenway. I have no interest to declare. I have no desire to be translated to Manchester—although I am sure it is a very good See—but none the less it seems to me that I should like to make a three-word speech, the shortest I have ever made, and simply say, "Votes for Boats".
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I wish to support what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has proposed with regard to all three Bills. In 1971 in this House a Bill was passed called the Isle of Wight County Council Bill. There are three-and-a-half pages in that Bill labelled Part II discussing public order and public safety.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I think he has moved on to Lord Avebury's Instruction, which we have not yet reached. We are at the moment discussing Lord Sandys' Instruction and we shall come to Lord Avebury's Instruction in due course.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I understood that the noble Lord was proposing a Motion which concerned all three Bills.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I am sorry if I did not make myself plain. Having moved the Second Reading of each Bill, we then take the Instructions seriatim, one after the other, and any noble Lord who wishes to discuss a particular Instruction can discuss that

1537
Instruction. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has not yet moved that particular Instruction.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I want to come back to the simple question of whether we should be allowed to keep boats in our front gardens, because that is what we are discussing. Boats can have a very aesthetic appearance, unlike some motor cars that are parked in front gardens. If motor cars are to be allowed to be parked in front gardens, why not boats? In the road where I live there are three houses which have a boat in the front garden. I look at them with pleasure every time I pass. Unfortunately I do not own a yacht myself. What occurs to me as I walk up and down the road is this: When prospective house purchasers walk down my road and see three houses with boats in front of them, that must surely put up the value of the property in the eyes of the would-be purchasers.
Furthermore, and perhaps a little more seriously, if a person has a boat, and if he finds great pleasure in the use of that boat, it is an interference with the liberty of the subject to say to him, "Thou shalt not". I am allowed to go fox hunting if I want to go fox hunting. I am allowed to go and watch football matches and throw bottles on the pitch if I want to do it. Why should I not be allowed to have a boat in my front garden if that is one of the few pleasures that I have in life? I support noble Lords who have spoken from the other side.
3.25 p.m.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, perhaps what I was going to say applies more to this Instruction than to the Second Reading. It is mixed and I hesitate, but I shall come in now. I sat last year with the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, on the Committee for those four Bills. As your Lordships are probably aware, the Committee came to several conclusions, one of which was reversed by the House as a whole, so it cannot be said that the Committee did not do its work properly, did not go into all
1538
these aspects with great care, and especially the aspects on boats and caravans. They were well presented, at great length, and at considerable expense to the parties concerned. We listened, we pondered and came to a decision that I think the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, will agree with me was a unanimous decision. I underline, and cannot agree more with various noble Lords who have said that it is a total waste of time, money, expense both to the organisations concerned and to the ratepayers of the various metropolitan counties concerned that they should have to go through this performance again. The process of producing individual Bills is an even greater waste of time, money, and skilled man-hours.
Surely the needs of metropolitan counties and district authorities could be met by one general purpose Bill. I know that the needs of Greater Manchester are different from the needs of, say, Wiltshire, Suffolk, or East Anglia, but they still do not have to take up those powers concerned. In the West Yorkshire Bill, and in one of the other Bills concerned, they will ask for the same powers in a slightly differently worded clause, but each having the same effect. Surely this is an inefficient and archaic way of protecting the public interest. It is of course good for lawyers, parliamentary agents, and local councillors' self-esteem, and for all sorts of totally unimportant and expensive reasons. I know that this is the view of the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, who chaired our Committee last year. I am sure that when the noble Lord, Lord Gordon-Walker, speaks he will underline that what I am saying is true—and I hesitate to put words into the mouth of a distinguished Privy Councillor—that this was the complete decision that we all came to. Anecdotally, and finally, the Manchester Bill is nearly 200 pages long, and the Constitution of the United States is 18 pages long.
Lord GORDON-WALKER: My Lords, I can speak briefly because, in the main, the noble Earl has said what I wanted to say. I particularly support Clause (b) of the Instruction. I am sure that the thing will be thrown out as our Committee threw it out, but the great thing is to stop this happening in future; to stop a great abuse of power by local authorities.
3.28 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, perhaps I could say one quick word as certain questions have been addressed to me. First, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, for having done me the courtesy of informing me that he posted a letter first-class to me on Friday, which has not yet reached me. May I further thank him for the courtesy of explaining to me what was in the letter that has not reached me. I should like to respond to what he asked me, and to what the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, asked me, and to the whole tenor of those noble Lords who have spoken in this debate—the fear that this kind of clause might occur again and again in future Bills.
I think it is a little unlikely. If for a second year running, a Select Committee has a look at this clause and considers the Instruction that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has moved and refuses to accept it once again, I hardly think it likely that future promoters—or that this would be the advice given to future promoters by one of the agents—would try and run such a clause again. But, in the event that they did, I think that your Lordships could probably with some degree of confidence rely on the Unopposed Bills Committee, to which it would then be referred, to look with great suspicion on a clause which had twice been considered by Select Committees of this House and twice refused. In the unlikely event of even that going wrong, there is always the further final chance that a petitioner can of course petition in the other House, so the safeguards are fairly strong.
So far as the question of a mandatory Instruction to the Committee is concerned, they are rare birds, but there would be no reason in a case like this, where the House had already taken a decision two years running, why a mandatory Instruction might become a more sensible way of proceeding. As for the question of awarding costs, I can only say that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, correctly quoted the Parliamentary Costs Act 1865, and that is the position; namely, that the Committee, if it is unanimous, can award costs.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3.31 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE rose to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that they should give special consideration to Clause 196 (Arrangements as to construction of buildings or carrying out of works) in order to satisfy themselves that it does not constitute an undesirable extension of the powers and functions of local authorities to operate in competition with private industry and interests in the same field.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 196, as drafted, would enable the contracting authorities, which are the direct labour or public works departments of the Manchester Council and the Wigan Council, to undertake new building and construction work for a number of public bodies. That means that the two councils would be carrying on a commercial trade with public bodies and the profitability or otherwise would directly affect the ratepayers. Furthermore, the contracting authorities would be in competition with the private sector, which has more than adequate resources to carry out the work. There is no provision that the power should be exercised in fair competition with the private sector and no requirement that a proper economic charge should be made for any work done, so the private sector could be faced with unfair competition, while, if the authority should make a loss or overspend, the ratepayers would suffer. The two federations concerned consider that the powers sought by Clause 196 should not be granted unless the promoters can show that extending the contruction activities of the contracting authorities would constitute as efficient an application of the limited resources, manpower and materials available to the industry as would be achieved by private contractors. I beg to move.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that they should give special consideration to Clause 196 (Arrangements as to construction of buildings or carrying out of works) in order to satisfy themselves that it does not constitute an undesirable extension of the powers and functions of local authorities to operate in competition with private industry and interests in the same field.—(Lord Cullen of Ashbourne.)
Lord SEFTON of GARSTON: My Lords, it was Saturday when I first heard of this Instruction and therefore I did not have the time or facilities to put my name down on the list of speakers, and, being a new Member of your Lordships' House, I was somewhat at a loss to know what to do next. Having arrived here this morning and finding myself in opposition to the Front Bench opposite, I am more nervous still.
To prepare my case I went to the Standing Orders of your Lordships' House. I believe the Instruction should not be accepted. If it were, it would be unfair and against the spirit of the Standing Orders of this House, and I hope I shall not bore noble Lords by referring to page 167, under the heading "Instructions", where the paragraph dealing with permissive instructions evidently reaffirms the principle in our Standing Orders that the House should not try to do something which is being done elsewhere, namely in Committee. It goes on:
"The most usual type of instruction on a Private Bill is of a cautionary nature. For instance, the Committee on the Bill are sometimes instructed to have regard to certain matters and not to authorise certain works unless satisfied that certain conditions have been complied with".
I can see plainly that the reason for that may be that Members of your Lordships' House who are not on the Committee and cannot attend its meetings might have knowledge of certain circumstances, in particular affecting the Bill, of which they think the Committee should be aware, and therefore a cautionary Instruction could be moved in this House and would normally be accepted. However, it also implies that Instructions of this sort should not be moved when the matter is to be debated by the Select Committee. Evidently that is fair because, if an Instruction of this sort were accepted, it would mean acceptance of some of the things the noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, mentioned—namely, that there could be unfair competition and that local authorities are not suitable organisations to carry out this work. That provokes me into saying that if one examines the record of the private building industry in this country one could make a case that not only was it inefficient but that in certain cases it was a menace to society, and I am sure I need not tell noble Lords about certain cases that have occurred in the private sector which, if they had
1542
occurred in local government, would have caused local government to be very ashamed indeed.
There is another aspect of this Instruction which must be borne in mind. If this House is to go on record as being a fair body which seeks to do justice to all, surely we ought not to jump the gun by saying that this Instruction should be accepted. If we did, we should be accepting an Instruction containing a principle that ought to be argued about by the Select Committee so that the promoters of the Bill have a chance to put their point of view or to comply with any requirements that any member of that Select Committee may wish to have inserted—for example, about the waste of public money or the removal of unfair competition; that is, of course, if unfair competition can be designated, and I have doubts that about.
It is also a bad Instruction because it gives the impression that an attempt is being made merely to oppose competition in the building industry. On that aspect, I would comment only that when the great barrage across the River Thames is finally, if ever, constructed, we may see the weakness of employing private contractors to carry out that sort of work. Indeed, one of the lessons we should have learned about employing private trade in the building industry is the scandal that existed in this country after the war in regard to bomb damage repairs, when "cost plus ten" was the common and accepted way of doing it. If this House is to be fair to be promoters, it should take note of its Standing Orders, which imply that Instructions should not be used to prejudge an issue which quite evidently will come before the Committee. We should be content to allow it to go before the Committee and let the promoters put their case.
3.39 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Sefton of Garston, misread the Standing Orders in that he argued as though this was a mandatory Instruction and as though the advice which my noble friend Lord Cullen of Ashbourne gave carried with it the force of preventing the Select Committee from discussing the merits of whatever the petitioners might do. In fact, this is a non-mandatory Instruction, and, far from cutting across the

1543
powers of the Select Committee, it helps them; it allows the Committee to know at once the feeling in the House generally towards this matter.
Lord SEFTON of GARSTON: My Lords, I do not think I was confused when I referred to page 167 of our Standing Orders. That deals with a cautionary Instruction. Perhaps in my inexperience I did not make myself clear. I was raising the issue that this kind of Instruction tends to debate a principle—a principle which, according to the objections lodged with the Select Committee, will be debated by the Select Committee in any case.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, the noble Lord is not taking into account the fact that whatever we do with the Instruction now will in no way interfere with how the Select Committee does its work and with what any petitioners may wish to say or do when the matter goes before the Select Committee. At the end of the day an Instruction is nothing more than a comment on a Second Reading debate. All the points which my noble friend has made in the Instruction he proposes are points which could legitimately have been made in a normal Second Reading speech. One would expect a Select Committee, in examining any matter on behalf of the House, to take into account points that are made in a Second Reading speech. I believe that the non-mandatory Instruction which my noble friend is now putting to the House is helpful in that it allows the Select Committee to know that there are feelings on the issue in question, based on considerable evidence. If for any reason the Select Committee does not—contrary to the Instruction—give special consideration to see whether there is anything undesirable, it then risks the matter being overturned by the House as a whole when it is brought back.
I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for thinking even for only a moment that he may be so averse to any criticism against direct labour by the local councils that he has tended to dredge up a supposed technical point in order to suggest that there is a matter which ought to be looked at and which is not quite in keeping with both conventions and the Standing Orders. If the noble Lord had opposed my noble
1544
friend by arguing in support of direct labour, as against the private enterprise tender system, then I should have had some sympathy with him, though I would not have agreed with him. I wish to have on the record the point that if all the evidence is brought forward it will be shown that money is wasted and jobs are done inefficiently under direct labour, as opposed to the normal private enterprise tendering. It looks as though the noble Lord has inadvertently suggested to the House that Standing Orders ought to be viewed in a way which would be different from the way they would in fact be viewed if the matter was being dealt with correctly.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down used a most charming expression; he spoke about a non-mandatory Instruction. To my way of thinking an Instruction is an Instruction, without any qualification, without prefix or suffix. I speak as a former company sergeant-major who knew what an instruction was. I do not want to go into my personal history in regard to this matter. My reason for intervening is merely that I was chairman of a county council, and leader of a county council, and I held other posts; so I have a long experience in local government. I found that almost invariably when a council wished to place a contract, whether with another council or with a firm of private constructers, it had to invite tenders. Therefore, if the Manchester or the Wigan council managed to secure a contract to build a refuse destructor or a housing estate for another council, it would be because the Manchester or Wigan council had won the contract in open competition by submitting a tender which was better or lower than the other tenders submitted by private builders. That is the only point that I wish to make, and I believe that it knocks the bottom out of all the arguments that have been made against the clause.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I do not want to enter into the arguments as to the merits of this particular clause, but I ought to say that there is nothing in Standing Orders which in any way leads me to advise your Lordships not to accept the Instruction if your Lordships feel so minded. With regard to the definition of "mandatory", the normal use of the

1545
word in this connection arises when the House instructs a Committee not to accept a certain clause altogether; here the Instruction is merely drawing the attention of the Committee to a particular clause. As the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, correctly said, there is a petition against this aspect of the matter, and the Select Committee will be considering it in the normal way, and both promoters and petitioners will have a full opportunity to deploy their case.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, before the noble Lord the Lord Chairman sits down, may I put it to him that if the position is as he has stated, why need one bother to put down an Instruction when the matter is to be fully considered? It is obviously being done for a particular purpose.
Lord ABERDARE: I did not put down the Instruction, my Lords.
Lord FLETCHER: My Lords, I do not want to prolong the debate, but I must say that I have a certain amount of sympathy with what my noble friend Lord Sefton has said, as well as with the remark that has just been made. I wonder what precisely will be the effect of the Instruction if it commends itself to the House. As I understand it, the issue will be argued as between the promoters and the opponents of the Bill. Therefore, I ask myself what will be the effect if the Instruction is passed?
Is it not the case that it may well be interpreted, rightly or wrongly—as my noble friend Lord Sefton suggests—as a pre-judgment of the issue which the Committee has to consider? If the Bill goes before the Select Committee without the Instruction it will be open to argument on its merits. The Instruction—whether or not it is so intended—seems to suggest that, whatever may be the merits of direct labour, there could in certain circumstances be what the Instruction calls "an undesirable extension" of powers. It seems to me that those very words must be calculated to bias and to influence the judgment of the Select Committee on the merits of the matter. I do not wish to comment upon the Standing Orders which enable the House to approve Instructions of various kinds, but I should have thought that the case for this Instruction had not been made out.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, am I allowed to make another comment?
Several noble Lords: No.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, if I may reply, I would say that, so far as I understand it, all I was doing was to draw attention to the points that I made. I do not for one moment consider that anything I have said will influence the Select Committee in any way. The Select Committee will have evidence from both sides to consider, and the only advantage in having moved the Instruction at all is that this short debate which we have had in your Lordships' House will be on the record.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3.48 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY Lord AVEBURY rose to move, That it be an instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that they should not allow Clause 69 (Notice of street processions) of the Bill unless they are satisfied that it is a matter which ought to be dealt with in a Private Bill rather than in national public order legislation.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as your Lordships may know, various county councils have included in their Bills for this Session provisions requiring persons who organise or conduct a procession to give a certain number of days' notice to the police. The arguments on this provision may to some extent be similar to those with which we have already dealt in regard to the Instruction moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys. If local authorities continue to come forward with provisions that have already been disallowed or withdrawn, then that is just as much a waste of time when we are dealing with a matter of public order legislation as it was a few minutes ago when we were discussing a matter of planning. Where these provisions have been considered by another place, I think I am correct in saying that in one case they were the subject of an Instruction, and in another case the local authority concerned gave an undertaking that the relevant clause would be withdrawn.
There are before us this afternoon three Bills which contain similar provisions and it may be for the convenience of the

1547
House if in moving my Instruction relating to the Greater Manchester Bill, I also at the same time discuss those Instructions which I have tabled relating to the Isle of Wight Bill and the South Yorkshire Bill. With regard to the South Yorkshire Bill, I am very pleased to be able to tell your Lordships that this morning I received a letter from the parliamentary agents acting on behalf of the promoters of the Bill, stating that with the leave of the Committee appointed to consider the Bill they would propose to withdraw the clause. That leaves us with the Greater Manchester and Isle of Wight provisions.
The first point I want to make is that your Lordships may well think that it would be inconsistent to grant to one or to two authorities powers which have been denied to several others, or which yet others have decided, on reflection, they would not continue to seek for themselves. It may be said that, in the past, some local authorities had powers similar to the ones being sought in these Bills, and I believe that that is true. But I also think that over the years we have become far more conscious of the need to maintain and preserve our civil liberties than perhaps we were at the time when those provisions were enacted.
The honourable Member for Birmingham Hall Green referred to various requirements in the West Midlands towns when another place were considering their Bill, and those were enacted in 1959. I am not sure whether any of them were more recent than that, but, if they were, then I would only say that, so far as most honourable Members are concerned, they are too busy to read these voluminous Bills—and I have great sympathy with the noble Lord who remarked earlier on that when one is faced with a Bill of such enormous length as this it is very difficult to make sure that you have spotted everything in it that might be objectionable. This Greater Manchester Bill, as the noble Lord has already remarked, is 181 pages long; and, therefore, unless we have organisations outside, such as the National Council for Civil Liberties, which are vigilant and carefully go through these Bills line by line, then it is only too easy for the promoters to slip in what your Lordships might consider to be objectionable provisions. But I
1548
think, as has already been said, that under the Local Government Act 1972 we have this wonderful opportunity to sweep away all the obsolete provisions that exist in Private Acts up and down the country and to replace them with something which is more attuned to modern conditions. Then we can start again with a clean slate, and can decide on the requirements that have to be observed, in this case by those who organise or conduct processions, from first principles, instead of doing it in a haphazard and piecemeal manner.
As my honourable and learned friend the Member for Montgomeryshire remarked when another place were considering similar provisions in another Bill, if one thinks that notice should be given so as to help the police maintain public order—and that is a point of view that one could easily respect—then the police are just as entitled to the consideration of Parliament in one part of the Kingdom as in another. In all other respects we make uniform rules throughout the country, and where a person is obliged to do anything that would facilitate the task of the police in preventing the law from being broken then that obligation is the same in Barrow as it is in Birmingham, in Lambeth as in Leominster, in Harwich as in Harrogate. It would be quite wrong, my Lords, as I suggested in the debate on the Instruction of the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, to create a patchwork of legislation, as we should be doing if we allowed these clauses in the Greater Manchester and the Isle of Wight Bills, so that in different parts of the country people had to give notice of varying numbers of days of their intention to hold a procession. I feel very strongly that this is a matter which can be dealt with properly only in a Public General Act, if indeed we think it is necessary for notice to be given at all.
The then Commissioner of Police for the metropolis suggested when this matter was being considered by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in the course of his inquiry into the disturbances in Red Lion Square, that seven clear days' notice should be given of any procession; and I take it, although, as New Society remarked in its issue of 15th February, nobody is clear as to where this suggestion emanated from, that probably it germinated in the mind of the then Commissioner

1549
of Police for the metropolis and was picked up from the evidence which he gave in the Red Lion Square inquiry, and that that is how we come to find it in all these Bills. But the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, found that the absence of any such requirement had played no part in the causation of those disorders; and the noble and learned Lord went on to point out that 80 per cent. of the processions held are in fact notified to the police voluntarily, while in the few instances where notice had not been given the police had no difficulty in finding out that a demonstration was planned for the very simple and obvious reason that an effective demonstration demands quite a degree of advance publicity. The noble and learned Lord went on to point out that there were some fringe elements who would not give notice, whether or not a law existed; and he asked the question: Why should those elements be allowed to force us to adopt a largely unnecessary requirement which could be an embarrassment to law-abiding citizens? I will not recapitulate all the organisations which have made representations against this clause, but the Association of Funeral Directors, for instance, has expressed serious, not to say grave, concern about these clauses.
It may be said that the events of Red Lion Square occurred some years ago, and that both the scale of demonstrations and the extent of the violence committed by some participants in such demonstrations has worsened since then. Perhaps that is so, and I am sure that almost everybody—certainly everybody in your Lordships' House—would deplore the behaviour of the thugs who terrorise the people of Brick Lane, or those who cause disturbances in Lewisham, for example. But in highly-publicised cases such as those, the police in fact have plenty of warning, and most of the time, I think, they have done an excellent job in maintaining order. Where the law has been broken, it was certainly not as a result of the police being given inadequate notice of the demonstration. If the Metropolitan Commissioner and other chief officers of police believe, however, that provisions such as those we are now considering would be useful, then let them come forward with properly considered proposals for legislation showing how it would stop violence and curb lawbreakers.
1550
Then, I am sure, Parliament would give very careful attention to any evidence which might be produced.
In the absence of such evidence, we have no reason to depart from the advice which was given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and certainly not to do so in a piecemeal manner. I think that these provisions would curb the freedom of law-abiding people without affecting the bullyboys of the streets. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that they should not allow Clause 69 (Notice of street processions) of the Bill unless they are satisfied that it is a matter which ought to be dealt with in a Private Bill rather than in national public order legislation.—(Lord Avebury.)
3.58 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I do depart from the advice given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, and indeed from that given by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. In his speech the noble Lord related his remarks to both Greater Manchester and, indeed, South Yorkshire, and suggested that there is not a case for those authorities to bring forward powers. My Lords, I have looked with care and interest at what Greater Manchester propose. They have been good enough to furnish details on this particular clause, and I think it might be for the benefit of the House if, with your Lordships' permission, I read out the note which Greater Manchester have attached to it.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord has referred to these notes, which came from the Greater Manchester Council, before. Could he say why they are not available to the rest of your Lordships, where they are and what is their provenance?
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, their provenance is indeed from Greater Manchester. The document is entitled An Explanatory Memorandum. It is not attached to the Bill.
Lord AVEBURY: It is not out of the Printed Paper Office, my Lords.
Lord SANDYS: It is not in the Printed Paper Office, my Lords, but I was fortunate enough to be furnished with a copy by my noble friend Lord Clitheroe. I understand that this is an official document, and perhaps your Lordships would be willing to accept that as evidence from me. If I may be permitted to proceed, I would read the point because I think it is very material to what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said. It says:
"The purpose of the power being sought in Clause 69 is to ensure that the police and the district council know in advance of a proposed public procession. The clause does not give any additional powers to the police to control a procession. This can already be done under the Public Order Act 1936. The power is considered to be necessary in the light of recent experience within Greater Manchester when a local authority felt impelled to make an order which the Home Secretary confirmed to prohibit processions for a certain period. The fact that neither the police nor the district council were given specific warning of the proposed procession made it difficult for the police to plan for the event and for the local authorities and the public to take consequential action to safeguard their property".
I listened with care to what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury said. He adduced the argument for your Lordships that notice of a public procession should be a matter of public general legislation. He added the evidence and the opinion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman; but against that it must be said that chief constables should have a freedom to act. It is the case that in the South Yorkshire Bill, South Yorkshire seek powers to obtain three days' notice and in the case of the Greater Manchester Bill at least seven days' notice before the event is sought. Both these local authorities are acting in the light of experience, in the light of the experience of the chief constables in those particular areas, and they have good reason to do so.
I believe that there is an opportunity here to reject the Instruction of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, because there is very strong ground for believing that these local authorities are seeking powers which are justifiable in local circumstances. We have a police force which is not organised on a national basis. Chief constables should be given the opportunity to act in the capacity to which they have been appointed. I believe that the clause should stand.
4.2 p.m.
Lord HEWLETT: My Lords, I do not believe that it is inconsistent to have this power in different locations according to circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, suggested sweeping away the obsolete. There is nothing obsolete in what I am about to say. It applies directly to Greater Manchester at the present time. If we are going to invoke the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, let me read from his Frank Newsam Memorial Lecture at the Police College recently. He said:
"Members of the general public have a right not to be disturbed as they move about the streets and other public places on their lawful business and pleasures. The principle is plain but I fear that the law's reconciliation of these rival claims for the use of our streets and public places is uncertain, archaic and underdeveloped. This obscurity of the law makes it difficult for the police to be effective without losing an unacceptable measure of public support".
In advocating the formulation of clear law, he went on:
"The criticism I make of English law in the field of human rights is not its lack of principle nor that it is always ineffectual, but that it has not adjusted itself to the realities of an industrial society entitled to exercise freedom of speech, protest and assembly, not only through representative institutions but directly—by assembly, march and protest in public places".
Later in his lecture he said:
"The truth is that there is no modern law governing the basic priorities in the use by society of streets and public places".
I therefore think that there is nothing inopportune in respect of this debate if I speak as follows.
I rise to support the inclusion of Clause 69 in the Greater Manchester Bill, irrespective of what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has to say; and I ask the House to reject his Instruction. Since being demobilised from the Royal Marines in 1946 and coming down from Cambridge in 1948, I have lived very close to or in Greater Manchester and have worked full-time in industry in the City of Manchester itself. I do not suggest that that qualifies me especially to give an opinion on this subject but clearly it is no disadvantage—any more than it is a disadvantage to have served on the City Council of Manchester and on the City Bench until my elevation to your Lordships' House. Of course, the freedom and rights of the citizenry should be paramount; but note that I said

1553
"citizenry" and not just some citizens. I suggest that it is time that the greatest good for the greatest number took priority—not to the exclusion of certain individuals but so as to temper their behaviour and the threat to the preservation of public order.
The requirement to give seven days' notice to the chief constable and to the district council of the intention to march or demonstrate, of the purpose thereof, of the route to be taken and of the person in charge—or who is meant to be in charge—is prefectly reasonable to protect those other citizens, thousands of them, wishing merely to go on their own lawful occasions to and from work or wherever else they wish or need to go. This provision in Clause 69 leaves time for the police to ensure that proper emergency services can be made available at the site no matter how great the demonstration or the march.
We all know from very recent picketing experiences how men, women and children have felt that their lives had been disrupted and many feel that they have been threatened. They must surely be properly protected from unreasonable activity. All I ask is that notice be given of the intention to march or demonstrate. I am all for preserving the absolute freedom of speech, free speech, demonstrations, marching and so on. But when the original developments in Manchester took place there was not the vehicular traffic moving at speed and there was not the complexity of industry and public services that exist today. I think it is the greatest intrusion on the liberty of the individual not to be able to use the highway, quite properly, without obstruction. If notice is given, the individual citizen can choose not to go by that particular route or to go at some other time. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for what reason should the majority be incommoded in the way he suggested they should by no notice being given? If proper notice of the situation is given, the ordinary citizen can choose the time and the route that he will take.
The real deep-seated trouble is not the procession. It is the procession led by a counter-procession or a demonstration by an anti-demonstration; and a state of enormous disorganisation can result—and has resulted—because proper notice
1554
has not been given. It is a specious argument to suggest that the police are bound to have heard of the projected march because of the considerable publicity it will have aroused. That is not true. Nor should we ask the civil power to have to listen to rumour and tittle-tattle from which to get its impression of what will be required for the preservation of public order. The police must ensure that if there is going to be a counter-procession, it does not take the same route or happen at the same time—which is likely to cause something approaching riot conditions. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, knows, as indeed does every noble Lord, that the Police Service, like the Armed Services, is in a considerable state of over-stretch. Surely this House does not wish to contribute to that situation, thereby risking the apprehension and maybe the real fear of householders, shopkeepers or the public generally who may have to endure these activities when the police have not been given any time at all to make special preparations for their safety.
I submit that it is, indeed, the duty of Parliament and of Government first and foremost to protect society as a whole. The cost to public funds of the National Front and then the Socialist Workers' Party marches in Manchester, Stockport, Tameside and Bolton amounted last year to £140,000. I know that half was paid by the Government; but we all know that it is not the Government who pay but the taxpayer, so that half was paid by the ratepayer and half by the taxpayer. I think that is an unwarrantable sum of money to be required when, if notice had been given, many of these extra provisions would not have been required.
On the pretext that the powers should not be given locally but nationally, if at all, through legislation, it is suggested that Clause 69 should possibly be removed from the Bill. Such, I suggest, would run counter to the principle established in 1975 in respect of the removal of individual clauses from Private Members' Bills on the grounds that they might subsequently become subject to general legislation. That may be true: but there is precious little chance of the present Government getting a measure through its own Party, let alone through Parliament, to amend the Public Order Act 1936. The picture of Ministers of the

1555
Crown on the Grunwick picket line is warning enough of this. The Grunwick demonstration meant, as noble Lords know, that no fewer than 25 per cent. of the whole of the Metropolitan Police Force had to be sent to that site on almost a continuous basis.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? He is surely not trying to pretend that the police did not know that the Grunwick picket was going to take place?
Lord HEWLETT: By no means, my Lords. I am suggesting that a major procession without notice being given takes very much more attention and emergency action on the part of the police and takes them off their proper duties.
Lord AVEBURY: That is irrelevant, my Lords.
Lord HEWLETT: I beg Lord Avebury's pardon, my Lords; I do not suggest for one moment that Lord Avebury is fair to say that is an irrelevant point. With 8,500 demonstrators at Grunwick—and 3,000 of them Yorkshire miners led by Mr. Scargill—one can say that nearly a riot situation did prevail. If speaking not elected by but representing the citizens of Greater Manchester, I wish that this situation shall not be created in the Greater Manchester district, I am perfectly right to put the view in your Lordships' House. Amendments to the Public Order Act 1936, as I was saying when the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, interrupted, would not be popular with this Government. I reiterate that Clause 69 is not trying to inhibit marches at all but merely to facilitate their being held properly.
My plea, my Lords, is that the wider community interest should be served; other metropolitan areas, as your Lordships have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, are seeking similar powers. It might interest your Lordships to know that France, West Germany, Italy and Holland already require notice to be given for demonstrations and marches of this type. It seems to me to be eminently sensible that Greater Manchester and any other greater metropolitan area in Britain should be protected by notice of these marches being required. There-
1556
fore, contrary to the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about Clause 69, there are points of view which I ask the House to take into consideration. I am reinforced in summarising these views to your Lordships by the knowledge that the clause is supported by the vast majority of local authorities in the Greater Manchester area and by the chief constable. I am certain that the chief constable will be prepared to attend before the Select Committee to explain his support for the proposed measure. I hope your Lordships feel that there are considerable merits in the proposal and that it would be wrong to confine the scope of the Select Committee's examination of the clause in the way in which the noble Lord's Motion now seeks to do.
If I could just restate this: the clause does not, as has frequently been claimed, give additional powers to the police, nor does it restrict the liberty of the individual. It merely asks that some consideration should be given to the electorate and the public at large. The clause contains that requirement of notice of a proposed public procession should be given to the police, but the chief constable retains his regulatory powers under general legislation applicable throughout the whole country. May I remind the House that the chief constable already has power where he apprehends that serious public disorder could arise to request a district council to prohibit such a march, and such an order does not become effective until approved by the Home Secretary. He also has power to impose conditions generally on the routeing of processions in the interest of maintaining public order.
Because of the chief constable's fear in Greater Manchester some 18 months' ago that such serious public disorder would arise at Tameside, he asked the Tameside Council to impose a ban on all processions and the Home Secretary of this Government so approved. So, my Lords, I am sorry but Lord Avebury's argument simply is not sound. The difficulty in these cases is that the chief constable has no legal or formal means of knowing when or where the procession is to take place. The chief constable and the community have a right, I submit, to this information because it is the public which can suffer through damage to private property with personal injury,

1557
traffic congestion, and the most important factor of all, the disruption to the emergency services, not to mention the general fear, apprehension and inconvenience caused.
The instruction moved by the noble Lord would require the Select Committee to limit its investigation of the need for Clause 69 to the matter of whether it is more appropriate for national rather than local legislation. I have already said that I cannot foresee Her Majesty's Government getting such legislation through. In the case of the South Glamorgan Consolidation Bill, the very first to be promoted after local Government reorganisation, the House were asked by the Committee to which that Bill had been referred to uphold a principle that a proposal in a local Bill should be disallowed if it was to meet a need common to all or a great number of authorities. That this House refused to do in 1975 and I claim created a precedent thereby. The fact that a power may be more appropriate for national legislation is no reason for withholding it from a private promoter when the Government have indicated no intention of legislating nationally. That was our decision on 9th December 1975, and I claim that the House should uphold its decision today. I ask this House to support the decision that Clause 69 be maintained in the Bill and to reject Lord Avebury's proposed Instruction.
4.16 p.m.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I have no wish at all to speak against the powers which are being asked for. I think it is quite possible that such powers are necessary. May I remind your Lordships that the particular Motion put down by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asks the Committee not to allow the clause unless they are satisfied that it is a matter which ought to be dealt with in a Private Bill rather than in national public order legislation. In 1971—if I am in order in referring to it now—we had a Bill before this House which had come through the House of Commons. I am informed that it got through the House of Commons because certain Members happened to have misunderstood the Orders of the Day and did not realise that the matter was coming up. But we had a Bill which came to this House dealing with the matter
1558
of the Isle of Wight; the legislation which we are considering today is quite analogous to it. In this Private Bill which came from the Isle of Wight, they had a clause, Clause 5, which referred to public order and safety. I have the Act in my hand and it contains three and a half pages which deal with the question of public order and safety.
At the time the Isle of Wight were concerned with the control of what were called "pop festivals". Some of your Lordships may remember the debate. It so happened that, because it had come through the House of Commons and was passed by them, the Second Reading was unopposed in your Lordships' House. It was only when the matter came before the Committee that deals with Private Bills—whose chairman was at that time the noble Earl, Lord Listowel—that it then became clear that there were certain matters which were objectionable in this clause. Many people thought that the whole clause was objectionable. But since it had been passed by the other place, and since it had a Second Reading here, the only way of dealing with it was by moving minor Amendments at Third Reading. I moved two such Amendments, and it so happened that they were carried.
The promoter of the Bill and the man who introduced it in this House was the noble Lord, Lord Blyton. He presented this Bill and accepted the Amendments. The amendments were on minor matters but it was hoped they would do two things: first, would prevent too hasty action and, as they were accepted, this hasty action was prevented; secondly, would be a warning that your Lordships' House does consider these matters carefully and does not accept without deliberation what comes forward in a private Bill.
I have looked back at the debate which took place on Third Reading on 19th July 1971. The noble Lady, Lady Ruthven of Freeland, said at column 755:
"Like many other speakers, I am doubtful whether powers of this kind should be dealt with by local authorities; I think they should be dealt with by central Government".
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said that she believed that legislation of this type must be public and should not be introduced by means of a Private Bill. Then

1559
in column 750 she made a very important remark:
"In this country we do not have a written Constitution. If we had one, it is very unlikely that this Bill could pass …".
I was talking to some Americans about that time, and they said there was no question that such a Bill would have contravened the basic written Constitution of the United States and would not have been allowed. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who was speaking for the Government at the time, both spoke of the desirability of general, as opposed to private, legislation.
I think that is a very important matter in this consideration. It is not a question as to whether the steps proposed by an authority should be right or wrong, but whether they should be generally accepted and approved by Parliament, because Parliament alone—despite what people may say—can lay down the general principles on which the order and public security of the country are governed. On that occasion, at column 760, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said:
"I appeal to the Government—pointing out that we shall watch how this matter goes—that other local authorities"—
that is, other than the Isle of Wight—
"should not be convinced that this House will automatically allow clauses of this kind to be put into Bills".
It was generally accepted by your Lordships' House at the time that it was highly undesirable that these matters, which are of public and general importance, should be decided by local authorities promoting Private Bills. A Private Bill is something which is necessary in order that a local authority should be able to carry out certain works and certain things which it desires to do. That is generally accepted, but I would submit to your Lordships that when a local authority goes beyond that and asks for powers to deal with matters which are of general public importance, that is something which concerns the country as a whole. Therefore it is something which must be decided by Parliament and not in terms of a Private Bill.
A Private Bill is like this one which the Isle of Wight has produced. When you go to the Printed Paper Office and ask
1560
for the Private Bill you are told it is in the Private Bills Office. Other Bills are there in the Printed Paper Office, but you have to go to the Private Bills Office to get this Bill. There, we find, if I may quote the Isle of Wight Bill, that Part V refers to "Public Order and Public Safety. "That is exactly the same title as they had in their Bill in 1971. It was pointed out to them in 1971, and pointed out to all local authorities, that your Lordships' House would not pass these clauses automatically but would consider them carefully.
All that is being asked now in this Motion is that the Committee, under the extremely competent control of the Chairman of Committees, will look carefully at this to decide, not to accept it, and not to reject it but whether it is something which is more appropriate in a Private Bill than in a Public Bill. For that reason, I strongly support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
4.24 p.m.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, one has been led to believe by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hewlett, that the Ayatollah Khomeini was going to come and lead a procession round Peterloo and that this state of near-insurrection and anarchy might be slightly modified by being told to a chief constable seven days before. If this state of affairs is something of national importance, let us remember, my Lords, that the Queen's first duty in Parliament is to protect the internal peace and good order of her Realm: that is her primary duty. Therefore, surely that must mean that either one policeman should have the power or that no policemen should have the power. That is absolutely fundamental.
Lord HEWLETT: My Lords, if the noble Earl would be kind enough to give way, would he not agree that circumstances in a very large conurbation like Greater Manchester are likely to differ tremen-doubly from those in Montgomery and Merioneth?
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, the powers of the policeman in Montgomery or Merioneth should be the same as those of the policeman in Greater Manchester, Liverpool. Guildford or Thameside. The fact that Merioneth has a lot more sheep

1561
than people in it may alter the number of people who are prepared to go on a procession: I will concede that your Lordships. But the powers of the police, and their rights and privileges, are a national and not a local concern. They should and must be uniform. Then the noble Lord, Lord Hewlett, said that in France and Germany the police have these powers. France and Germany are States and not individual local authorities, and that is uniform in both France and Germany. I would point out to the noble Lord that Germany is a Federal State and, from what he said, the powers of the police in the Federal States are similar as well.
4.29 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, if I may detain the House for a few minutes, I would begin by apologising for the fact that I did not put my name down to speak, but I have been up-country and it was only upon my return that I saw that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, had tabled this Instruction to the Committee. I would join the noble Lord, Lord Hewlett, in opposing this recommendation, and in emphatic terms, because the noble Lord made the rather obvious point that if you are dealing with a policing problem in Manchester, it is a little different from dealing with a policing problem in a rural area. It seems to me that one problem which we have to recognise on this occasion is that many local authorities have in the past had precisely these powers: I would repeat, with great respect, "precisely these powers". If the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would allow me for a moment to deploy my argument I will gladly give way later. We listen with great respect to what he says and one must be able to answer his argument.
The point is that a number of local authorities have had powers either precisely similar, or remarkably similar, to the powers that are being asked for here. That is the substance of the argument. The question is whether we should retain those powers here, in one of the largest local authority areas in this country which has already had substantial public order problems because of National Front and other demonstrations. I can hardly think of a more injudicious moment to withdraw a power of this kind. It appears to me that a large number of our fellow citizens
1562
in this country would regard it as a most remarkable proposition that, at a time like this, we in this House should decide to withdraw a power of this kind.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, did the noble Lord say "withdraw a power"? They are asking for an additional power.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, with great respect, I was talking about a withdrawal of power of this kind, as is proposed in this Bill. We are talking about a clause in the Bill which, if this Instruction is carried, might well be withdrawn and it is that to which I am objecting. If I may just make one point to the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, I listened to him about the Constitution of the United States. With great respect, he is entirely wrong. As Minister of State at the Home Office, I visited the United States only a little over a year ago, and discussed precisely this question with a number of senior United States police officers who have not only this power but greater powers. I would mention the City of Boston, but there are many others which have powers not only to notify, but to require a permit to be secured. Therefore, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, he is, in fact, wrong, about the Constitution of the United States in so far as that is relevant to this debate.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, since I am accused of being wrong, may I say that I discussed this matter with the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee of Congress.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, with great respect to the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, I would draw his attention and that of the noble Lord to the provisions in Boston, and in a number of other United States cities, which have been used by police departments in those cities for many years past. I have no knowledge of a case which has been appealed to the United States Supreme Court, and if such an appeal had been made to the Supreme Court, then, of course, the powers would have had to be struck out. Therefore, with great respect to the noble Lord, I think that on this matter I really must be right. Developing this—
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to make this point. He has asserted that precisely the powers contained in this Bill are already on the Statute Book in private legislation. I challenge him to name one local authority anywhere in the Kingdom, in which seven days' notice has to be given of a procession.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, what I am saying to the noble Lord is that there are a number of local authorities. If he is asking me to name them now, then he has the advantage of me. I cannot, in fact, name them, but I shall gladly make inquiries on this point. But, with great respect to the noble Lord, I note his point about the seven days, and I have no objection to the Committee discussing at some stage in the future whether the period should be seven days or some other time. What we are talking about is prior notification. That is the substance of this matter and, with great respect, that is what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has to address himself to. We are not here talking about a fundamental question of civil liberties, as the noble Lord suggested, because the police are not here being given power to ban a procession. They are being given power to require notification to be made. I can see no grave civil liberties issue at all here. It seems to me that, at a time when the police in many of our great cities are having to deal with substantial public order problems as a result of extremely large-scale demonstrations, it is reasonable that they should be given a power of this kind. After all, we are talking about—
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, may I—
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: No, my Lords. With great respect, I have already given way twice. I think it not unreasonable that I should be allowed to deploy my argument. All I would say to the noble Lord is that we are talking about a situation where, if he received proper notification as would be required under this Bill, a chief constable would have time to make the deployment of very substantial numbers of personnel, which it would be necessary for him to make if he was to be faced with a demon-
1564
stration, possibly consisting of many thousands of people. That being so, it seems to me particularly desirable to maintain this power.
I think that the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, are essentially matters for the Committee, particularly the question of whether the period of notification should be three days, four days, five days, six days or seven days. That is entirely a matter for the Committee. But the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has made his attack on this clause so sweeping that it seems to me that the House should address itself to the question of principle. All I would do is to repeat that, certainly on the basis of my own experience as a Home Office Minister for a period of five years, when we were having more and more large-scale demonstrations of this kind, it is highly desirable that this power should be retained. Certainly, if the noble Lord divides the House I shall go into the Lobby against it.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether he has not made a very good speech saying that this is a power that is required generally by chief constables? I do not think anybody is disagreeing with that. What some of us are finding slightly odd is that one chief constable alone should have this power, and not all the others. That is what one is kicking about.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, there are two answers to that point. We are looking at this matter in connection with the Greater Manchester Bill, but we considered precisely the same matter at the time of the Merseyside and West Midlands Bills. The noble Earl may have spoken on those occasions, although I cannot recall him doing so. But we have already considered this question. The Committee did not oppose this power on the previous occasion and, that being so, it puts this matter on a very different footing from the boats issue which we were discussing a few moments ago. One knows, on the basis of one's own experience as a Minister, how difficult it is to squeeze Bills into a Parliamentary timetable. We are now talking about a Bill which will, if passed by both Houses of Parliament, go on to the Statute Book in this Session of Parliament. If we are

1565
talking about some general power, then we shall not be talking about this Session, next Session or the Session after that. The question is whether we are to give the Greater Manchester police this power. It seems to me that, given the scale of the public order problems that have arisen in Greater Manchester, it is essential that they should be given this power.
4.38 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has given a very impressive explanation of why we should not allow this Instruction to go forward. But there is a detail. My noble friend does not seem to have been convinced by that impressive speech, and I gather by his intervention that neither has the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. They seem to have made up their minds that, on all occasions, any powers should be national powers and that there should never by any local powers. I would go with them so far as to say that, from my experience, the overwhelming majority of powers should be national and not local. The example given by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, was a good example of that. He was right in suggesting that the Isle of Wight pop concert crowds was a matter which should have been dealt with by national powers and not by local powers. But there are powers that ought to be given locally that need not be extended nationally, and I believe that one of those powers is that set out in Clause 69 of this Bill.
This clause is not giving extra powers to the chief constable. It is merely reinforcing powers that are generally accepted throughout the country. The real power of being able to direct a procession and do something about it is already national. All chief constables over the whole country have that power. So that, to that extent, the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and my noble friend are covered. What these local authorities are saying—and I think that they are right—is that, while they have those general powers which are shared by the rest of the nation, they believe that there are circumstances in their area which call for those general powers to be reinforced, because of their special problem. It is the special problem of a great conurbation, with mixed races, and all the centralisation of political
1566
thought that goes on in a city like Manchester.
They are saying, "The general powers are good, and they are all that we need, but we want it to be reinforced so that the general powers can be properly applied. At the moment we have no legal knowledge as to when a procession is likely to take place, but we find out nine times out of 10, or even 99 times out of 100". As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, they say, "We see the publicity advertising processions, or we know from our various police sources that something is going to happen, and in that roundabout way we try to take some precautions which will minimise any dangers which may flow from it". But they have no legal right to know when these things will happen. It could be that through not having a legal right there would be processions which developed into disorder on a scale none of us would want.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was quite wrong in saying that no procession that would carry these dangers could take place without the police knowing about it. As an analogy, I do not know whether he saw last week that excellent television programme "Julius Caesar". In that presentation we had a precise example of the eloquent orator Mark Antony, at a time when a meeting was in progress, by his oratory and his inflammatory speech getting the crowd, at a second's notice, to follow him in pillaging Rome in order to justify what he thought was the wrongful assassination of Julius Caesar.
I do not know how long the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has been actively engaged in constituency politics. I remember that on more than one occasion when I was a young councillor in the constituency of Wednesbury, where they took politics very seriously, I saw a very great orator representing the Labour Party whip up a crowd. Almost at a minute's notice he was able to get the crowd to follow him down the street and do all sorts of things. That will now be legal, unless we give to Manchester and to places like it the power to insist that they must have seven days' notice, or some days' notice, so that the police can take precautions to safeguard the shopkeepers and other citizens in the area.

1567
So it is not true in practice—although in theory it may be thought to be true by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—that the police must know on all occasions when something disreputable is likely to happen. It is true that, generally speaking, the powers already apply nationally. This will merely reinforce them locally. In the light of all that is happening today we should be very unwise to ignore the advice given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, backed up by the experience which he gathered while he was a Minister at the Home Office.
Lord SEFTON of GARSTON: My Lords, I feel that I should apologise to the House for speaking twice, but I am tempted to do so because, having moved from "Julius Caesar" to the practical times of today, I have not yet heard why it is that demonstations happen. Evidently, some demonstrations have taken place in the recent past which were deliberately aimed at causing public disorder; but there are other kinds of demonstration. I well remember that at the time of Suez a demonstration took place on Merseyside. Thousands of people were involved in that demonstration, which took place within a time span of two days. If the chief constable of Liverpool had had the power to require seven days' notice of that demonstration, that safety valve of a demonstration by thousands of people would have blown. It was only because the chief constable of Liverpool, exercising his right in a sensible way, allowed that demonstration to take place that no riots occurred in Liverpool that evening. We could not have given seven days' notice.
I think that this highlights what I said previously: whether we like it or whether we do not, the debate is taking place today in this House instead of taking place in a Committee. If I have to vote I shall vote in favour of the Instruction, because I believe that to require seven days' notice is stupid. We should give power to the chief constable, but we should have sufficient trust in him to say that his power should not be restricted by the clock. The right to demonstrate in the United Kingdom is sacrosanct. You cannot say to somebody who feels strongly about a certain issue, "Yes, express your indignation, but wait for seven days".
Lord HEWLETT: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he not agree that there is a big difference between the demonstration which he mentioned regarding the Suez operation and what transpired in Greater Manchester when the National Front chose to hold a big demonstration through the centre of the conurbation and the Socialist Workers' party chose to answer it by a similar demonstration over the same area? We were very close indeed to major civil disorder. If proper notice had had to be given, the police could have made far more adequate preparation than they were allowed to do.
Lord SEFTON of GARSTON: My Lords, if I may say so, I think that the noble Lord has completely missed the point, because he has allowed emotion to sway his judgment.
4.47 p.m.
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I intervene briefly in this debate on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about processions only to say that the contents of this Bill and of others like it arc the responsibility of local authorities. The Government have neither asked nor in any way suggested to the authorities that provisions regarding notice of processions should be included. I should like, however, to put to the House a few points in relation to the general law and then on the question of local Bills.
As to the general law, your Lordships will know that the Public Order Act 1936, which contains the relevant national law, imposes no requirement on the organisers of processions to give advance notice. In this country, we have not found the need to impose a general requirement, although in recent years we have had to consider that on more than one occasion. The then Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis proposed to Lord Scarman's inquiry that the law should be changed so as to include a requirement of seven days' clear notice of processions. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has quoted what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, said at that time.
In particular, there is the noble and learned Lord's point that our law assumes that people will be tolerant, self-disciplined and willing to co-operate with the

1569
police and that that is why, with no legal requirement of notice, the police are notified in at least 80 per cent. of cases. There is also the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, that those on the fringe of our society who would never give notice at all should not force upon the law a largely unnecessary requirement which at times could be an embarrassment to law-abiding citizens. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, as your Lordships know, did not recommend a change in this law.
We in the Home Office considered, after the disturbances at Lewisham and Ladywood, that the Public Order Act 1936 should be reviewed. Admittedly, at Lewisham the lack of an advance notice requirement had in no way contributed to the disorder. It had, however, I am advised, made more difficult the policing of the election meeting at Lady-wood where impromptu marches were organised by the demonstrators. The lack of such a requirement also had a bearing, I am advised, on events in Manchester on 8th October 1977, when the National Front held a march through Levenshulme and Longsight. Our subsequent discussions with chief officers did not suggest that deficiencies in the national law were regarded by them as a major problem.
The arguments were finely balanced, but it is the view of the Government that the views expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, have not been invalidated for the country as a whole by subsequent events. We see no reason currently to amend the Public Order Act 1936. However, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said recently in another place that in making it clear that we do not currently see any reason to amend the Public Order Act 1963, it does not necessarily follow that we should wish to advise the House to vote against an advance notice provision in a local Bill. What it does mean is that any area wishing to retain or acquire such a power should, in our view, have to justify its case clearly and firmly on grounds related to the special needs of the area. Therefore, in our view, it is for your Lordships' House to decide the matter on its particular merits.
4.51 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I am afraid I have to say that the attitude of the
1570
Home Office is a cowardly and unseemly one, backing away from what is essentially a national problem and leaving it to the local authorities to make up their minds in particular cases whether or not they wish to take such powers as we are discussing at the moment. Of course I except the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, from those strictures; I know that he has not been in the Home Office for very long and I am sure that, left to himself, he would agree with the proposition that I have been advancing this afternoon, that this is pre-eminently a matter for national and public legislation and not—
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I can satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, absolutely on one particular point and that is that, although I have been in the Home Office for only a very short time, I am in fact speaking for Her Majesty's Government and I am wholly committed to the point that I have advanced before your Lordships this afternoon.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, of course I accept entirely what the noble Lord, Lord Boston has said, although I must say that I would not have expected him to follow that line of argument but rather that he would have leant towards the view that I have been advancing, namely that this is pre-eminently a matter for public and general legislation and that it would be unsatisfactory to leave it to Greater Manchester or any other local authority to take these powers if they were necessary.
Who can tell where the National Front or the Socialist Workers might be minded to create a disturbance next? The noble Lord, Lord Boston, mentioned two cases as examples where it might be claimed that if the police had had better notice it would have made a difference to the arrangements that they made. The noble Lord mentioned Ladywood and Manchester but are these the only places where the National Front or the Socialist Workers are active? I have been to several places in Greater London where disturbances have been created and I am quite certain that in the Provinces also there are areas where there are cells of these organisations working towards the creation of violent confrontations, either during the forthcoming election or quite independently of any political activity

1571
that may be taking place on a national scale. Therefore, nothing which has been said in this debate this afternoon removes my firm conviction that this is a matter for national legislation.
This afternoon, we are not addressing ourselves to the merits of Clause 69, although most of the speeches have been on that subject. We are in fact talking about whether these matters should be dealt with on a uniform basis—whether we are speaking about the powers of the police or not—and there has been an interesting difference of opinion between those who have spoken against the Instruction as to whether or not there is any enlargement of the powers of the police. I say that we are not speaking so much about the powers of the police as about the rights and the privileges, as well as the obligations, of the ordinary citizen, because it is the citizen who organises or conducts a march who has to notify the police, either seven days before, as in the case of Greater Manchester, or before some different period as laid down in other Acts. When I intervened in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, I did so because he used the words, "precisely these powers", and I think he now accepts that so far there is no local Act on the Statute Book which requires a notice of as much as seven days. In all the West Midlands local Acts which I examined the period is either 24 or 48 hours. But that is a minor detail as compared with the general principle that we are allowing to go through, as it were, on the nod by accepting a provision in a local Act.
If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Hewlett, made an extremely good speech in favour of the inclusion of a provision such as this in a public general Act. He hardly mentioned the case of Greater Manchester except to refer to his own lack of experience of that city and the disturbances which would have taken place in Tameside had it not been for the appeal made by the chief constable for a period during which all demonstrations were prohibited, an appeal which was subsequently accepted by the Home Office. It was because the police were well aware that these confrontations were likely to take place that they invoked the Public Order Act and obtained the prohibition
1572
which no doubt was completely justified by the circumstances of Greater Manchester. That they did without any reference to the amount of notice; in fact it is an argument against his speech, that the Instruction should be rejected, because the police were aware that these events were to take place and they were able in good time to ask the Home Office to exercise its powers under the Public Order Act.
Lord HEWLETT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, whether he really wants to leave a matter of such importance to chance, just in the hope that the police may hear accurately? I cannot believe that he wants that.
Lord AVEBURY: Not necessarily, my Lords. I say that this is a matter which should be examined calmly and dispassionately on a national scale and it is really not good enough for the noble Lord to introduce a comparison between Greater Manchester on the one hand and Merioneth on the other. We are really speaking here about major conurbations; those are the areas where disturbances take place, organised by the extreme wings of the Left and the Right, and, if we were going to have national legislation, it would of course cover not only Greater Manchester and London, but also Birmingham, Liverpool and the many other large urban centres where demonstrations may take place.
However, I am not trying to pre-empt the judgment of Parliament on that matter. It would be quite wrong of us to do so on this occasion. In fact, the reason why I tabled my Instruction was not so that we should arrive at a decision on a Private Bill but so that we should have a proper look at this in terms of a national problem, even though perhaps we cannot introduce legislation in the current Session, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris, remarked, and though it might be next year or the year after before we could get something on to the Statute Book. I entirely accept that point and I think there might be one or two instances where the police would regret not having the sort of powers for which Greater Manchester are asking in this Bill, but I think that is an extremely small price to pay for getting the law right on a national basis and I beg the House this afternoon to pass this Instruction.
4.58 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?

ISLE OF WIGHT BILL [H.L.]
5.6 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Aberdare.)
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: My Lords, I will keep your Lordships for
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 102.

CONTENTS

Amulree, L.

Hampton, L.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Ardwick, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

St. Davids, V.

Avebury, L. [Teller.]

London, Bp.

Seear, B.

Bacon, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Banks, L. [Teller.]

McNair, L.

Southwell, Bp.

Collison, L.

Meston, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Onslow, E.

Wade, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

White, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Hale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Alport, L.

Faithfull, B.

Marley, L.

Ampthill, L.

Falkland, V.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Auckland, L.

Ferrers, E.

Molson, L.

Avon, E.

Fortescue, E.

Monck, V.

Bessborough, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Gainford, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Briggs, L.

Gisborough, L.

Mottistone, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Glasgow, E.

Mountgarret, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Tellor.]

Caithness, E.

Green way, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gridley, L.

Newall, L.

Carrington, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Norfolk, D.

Cathcart, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Clancarty, E.

Halsbury, E.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Hanworth, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Harmer-Nicholls, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Cockfield, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L. [Teller.]

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Reigate, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hawke, L.

St. Just, L.

Croft, L.

Hewlett, L.

Sandys, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Slim, V.

Daventry, V.

Hylton, L.

Somers, L.

Davidson, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

de Clifford, L.

Ilchester, E.

Stradbroke, E.

Denham, L.

Inglewood, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Derwent, L.

Killearn, L.

Strathspey, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Teviot, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Tranmire, L.

Elles, B.

Linlithgow, M.

Vernon, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Listowel, E.

Vickers, B.

Elton, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Vivian, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Long, V.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Westbury, L.

Exeter, M.

Lyell, L.

Young, B.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

only a minute. My remarks concern the Isle of Wight Bill and also the South Yorkshire Bill. Perhaps I could ask the noble Lord the Chairman to draw my remarks to the attention of the Select Committees on both Bills, rather than that I should speak separately on the two Bills. My worry concerns provisions in Clause 36 of the Isle of Wight Bill and Clause 77 of the South Yorkshire Bill asking for powers to prevent straw and stubble burning linked to drought orders. I suppose I should declare an interest; I am a farmer. I would make three points. First, it seems to me illogical to

1575
prevent burning in South Yorkshire when neighbouring counties are not so prevented. What happens when the county boundary goes through the middle of a field? I certainly would feel aggrieved if my neighbour could burn and I could not, Would I be paid extra for this sacrifice? I rather doubt it.
Secondly, I am not certain whether the mischief that the clause is designed to stop is the hazard of fire, or whether it is intended to conserve water supplies. I rather suspect the former and consequently doubt the advisability of linking the operation of the clause to drought orders. These orders do not correspond to the driest weather when fire may be a hazard but rather follow as a result of long dry periods; for instance, a recently enacted order—I think it is still in force or it certainly was at Christmas-time—by the South West Water Authority, when there was no shortage of rainfall in Devon or Cornwall at that time, and certainly there was no fire risk in December. If it is the latter—that is, saving water—I would say, first, that it is the plough and the cultivator which is the better weapon to fight fires than water so far as stubble is concerned. Surely, if it is a question of water, there should be some exclusion for those farms that have their own water supplies.
Thirdly, I am seriously concerned about the danger of leaving acres of unburned straw about at times when it is dry and most vulnerable to accidental fire. Increased access to the countryside makes this danger worse every year. Also, as your Lordships know, there has been a very unfortunate increase in the incidence of arson on the farm today. I believe that a controlled programme of stubble burning removes this potentially hazardous risk, although I would, of course, be more than happy to agree to rules and directions on how farmers light fires and control fires. In any event, these are in force at present in many counties and districts and are strongly, indeed I would say more than strongly, supported by all responsible farmers, and certainly by the farmers' organisations.
Finally, I realise that many people dislike stubble burning. I feel that I am standing here as an arsonist. But, without going into a long discussion—which I do not
1576
intend to do—on its essential role in modern agriculture, I should say that all leading scientific thought is 100 per cent. in favour of a good burn on an arable farm. As an arable farmer I would say, that the advantages of a good burn, coupled with modern methods of cultivation practised by many arable farmers in this country, and indeed encouraged by such agricultural research stations as Letcombe and the Weed Research Station, are showing the way—and I really mean this—to some of the most exciting advances that British agriculture or British arable argiculture has seen for quite a long time.
There seem to be two common factors in my double appeal to your Lordships' House tonight and to its Select Committees. First, both my appeals try to protect individual liberty and, secondly, in both cases it seems strange, and indeed sad, that the provisions in these two Bills seek to harm farming, and in the case of the previous Bill—the Greater Manchester County Council Bill—dinghy racing and sailing. It is a strange coincidence that both of those occupations, if I can call them that, are ones in which we as a country are world leaders.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I should like to say a few words on Second Reading and begin by declaring an interest as an inhabitant of the Isle of Wight. I should like to make two brief points in commending the Bill to your Lordships and to the Select Committee. As we heard earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, the Isle of Wight had its last Act in 1971 which, in terms of Private Acts, is comparatively recent. So, that Act dealt very recently with the matters required to be dealt with by that part of the country and the inhabitants of the Isle of Wight. Therefore, in so far as this Bill repeats the salient points of the previous Bill and updates them, I would recommend it to the House and the Select Committee.
There are many details with which I shall not bore your Lordships, but there are two petitions which I should like to mention briefly. Both petitions are worthy of consideration by the Committee. As regards that one has no doubts whatsoever. However, it seems to me that one of the petitions could lead to a monopoly situation. I should like strongly to make

1577
the point that, so far as the Isle of Wight is concerned, transport to the mainland is a matter of great importance and requires the greatest possible flexibility and alternatives as regards both goods and persons. I would ask the Committee to pay particular attention to anything in the terms of the petitions which it thinks might militate against that, both now or in the future.
My only other remarks relate to the Instruction by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I am not sure whether I should speak now or wait until after the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has spoken. By the leave of the House I prefer to speak later when we know what plans the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I shall certainly draw the attention of the Select Committee which is to consider the Bill to what the noble Lord has said, and, in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, I shall draw his remarks to the attention of the Select Committees considering both this Bill and the South Yorkshire Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

SOUTH YORKSHIRE BILL [H.L.]
5.15 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be read 2a.—(Lord Aberdare.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, in examining this very large Bill, I hope that your Lordships will allow me a few minutes in which to express a number of points brought forward from this part of the world. Clauses 39 and 40, which relate to defective electrical installations, are matters which we believe should be included in national legislation. Existing legislation, such as the Housing Act 1957 and also the Building Regulations of 1965, already caters for them and we believe that those two clauses should be deleted from the the Bill.
The restrictive powers on temporary installations in Clause 61 appear to be
1578
drawn much too tightly and strictly. In relation to tents, it would prevent schools and bodies such as the Boy Scout's Association, erecting a tent for one day without permission. That was clearly not in the mind of those who drew up the Bill. Further, the fire precautions make that particular activity much too expensive. If necessary they should apply only where temporary structures go up for three days or more.
Clause 69 relates to secondhand goods. Here I should like to draw the attention of the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman to a parallel clause which exists in the Greater Manchester Bill. In the Greater Manchester Bill the sale of secondhand goods is dealt with by Clause 66 and I should like to refer to the problem on account of both Bills. In both cases the clauses are drawn tightly. It would make it extremely difficult for non-charitable bazaars or shops, which are in a state of redundancy and about to be demolished, to be purchased for the purpose of managing them with a view to the sale of secondhand goods for a body which is not necessarily a registered charity. It could have charitable purposes, but if it is not a registered charity it would be outside the Act. I know from personal experience in these matters that a very large number of bodies are anxious to engage in the sale of secondhand goods. I think that the local authorities, especially in view of the inflated prices which obtain for very large numbers of domestic appliances these days, should take account of the fact that a great many people would like to have the opportunity to deal in secondhand goods on sale or for purchase in this regard.
There are further restrictive measures within these clauses which will not allow children to participate. It is unfortunate that those under 16 who would probably like to participate in a function or a bazaar or something of that nature, would, as I read the Bill, be disallowed from doing so.
Clause 76 relates to oil-burning equipment and again there is concern that the clause is drawn much too narrowly. The objection relates principally to the fact that the boiler capacity is set at 3,500 litres which is getting very close to the domestic size. Domestic oil-fired central heating should be excluded. I turn to Clause 77 which deals with the matter of straw

1579
burning, so eloquently spoken to by my noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley a few moments ago. We believe that that could be included under existing legislation, for instance, in the Drought Act. It is a national issue, not a local issue. As regards Clause 94, dancing and drink-in establishments which already must be licensed for this particular purpose, suggests that the clause may be unnecessary.
I turn to Clause 119. A circular, addressed to your Lordships, from the Lord's Day Observance Society states:
"Firstly, it has been brought to the attention of this Society that a Private Bill entitled the South Yorkshire Bill has been presented to the House of Lords. Clause 119 gives the power to charge for admission to certain events to be held on Sundays in South Yorkshire".
The circular goes on to make representations which, no doubt, will be fully dealt with in the Select Committee.
I should also like to draw attention to Clause 139, where there is objection. The clause is concerned with the liability of directors of companies. Once again, this is a matter which should be considered as part of national legislation and not as private legislation in the local field. Those are the matters which we believe should be the concern of the Select Committee. I am grateful for being allowed to take up the time to put them before your Lordships' House.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for having drawn our attention to these clauses and I shall ensure that they are referred to the appropriate Select Committee.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.
5.22 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS rose to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that they should not allow Clause 64 (Control of pleasure fairs) of the Bill unless they are satisfied:—

(1) that it falls within the principles for the consideration of private bills set out in paragraph 7 of the Report dated 16th April 1976 of the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Wales on the County of South Glamorgan Bill, and

1580

(2) that the matter is one which ought to be controlled by criminal sanction rather than by the planning law.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords will note that the wording of my Instruction has been marginally altered in order to overcome a technicality which would have left a little ambiguity. The present wording removes the ambiguity that existed before, but there is no material change in the meaning. I seek to prohibit the clause dealing with the holding of any pleasure fair within the district of South Yorkshire without the consent of any district council. Indeed, it goes further than merely wanting to give consent; it wishes to establish that even a fair that has been operating satisfactorily for years and years shall, in future, become a criminal offence attracting a fine of up to £500 unless such consent is forthcoming.
Therefore, I set down my Instruction on four bases. First, I do not think that the provision is necessary at all as local authorities already have sufficient powers to deal with any nuisance that may arise. Secondly, it is wrong to bring this criminal sanction into a matter which has always been looked upon as being purely a planning matter. Thirdly, by attempting to bring in such a restriction by way of a Private Bill, in effect one will be by-passing the normal Parliamentary procedure on a matter which is of national coverage, with no special local reasons which deviate from the national trend. That is a good example of the point I tried to make to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, a few minutes ago. He wanted to make an alteration nationally which was not necessarily of national importance, reinforcing the powers in certain areas. But the operating of fairs and all that flows from it is national—the pleasure and reaction is identical whether it is in Manchester or Merionethshire, which I think were the two examples cited in the previous Instruction.
The fourth reason—which is very similar to the arguments which have been put before during this debate on local Bills—is that when a similar clause to No. 64 was incorporated into the County of South Glamorgan Bill in 1975 your Lordships Committee cut it out. I would reiterate the arguments put earlier this afternoon, that in the face of a clear

1581
indication from your Lordships' Committee, after listening to a petition and having gone into the matter, it ought not to be repeated year after year, putting people to the expense and trouble of having to repeat what has already been decided. Therefore, this is another example which I have no doubt the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees will draw to the attention of his colleagues when they look at this particular item.
I do not believe that Clause 64 is necessary because, although it is true that at present under the Planning Act planning permission is not required to use land as a fairground up to 28 days in any calendar year on any one site—at the minute they have that clearance—it is equally true that under Article 4 of the General Development Order 1977 the local authority has the power temporarily to suspend this "exemption from planning permission" for a period of six months if it believes that it has special grounds for so doing. This is a very real power for the local authority to have. I do not think that a local authority needs any further powers in order to clear away a nuisance. However, under the existing powers, which I think are sufficient, having given power to the local authorities, that order also recognises the rights of the fairground operator who can appeal to the Secretary of State for the Environment to have any suspension lifted if he can show to the Minister that the suspension is unfair and unnecessary.
Therefore, I submit that this power, which is available to the local authorities and which brings in the Secretary of State as the umpire, provides all that is necessary to safeguard the interests of local inhabitants. To go further, even to the point of making it a criminal sanction with a £500 fine in one area, leaving the rest of the country free, is not only inappropriate but entirely wrong. That introduces an injustice which should not be tolerated.
Further, I submit that if there is any evidence to show that fairs which have operated for centuries need to be put in this criminal straitjacket, Parliament ought to deal with it in the normal way over the whole of the country. On that ground alone I believe that this particular clause ought to be struck out by the Committee. But in addition, looking at it from the
1582
public morale point of view, I submit that it is wrong to bring criminal sanctions into a matter which is surely a planning matter. In all seriousness I would suggest that if we make a practice of bringing technical planning breaches into the courts as criminal acts, we risk adding to the sad, unsatisfactory tendency that people will begin to look at the law with contempt instead of with respect.
Therefore, in addition to this general objection, I maintain that we should look at the actual procedure envisaged in this clause. At the minute the clause requires fairground operators to submit application 35 days before the date on which any pleasure fair is intended. Even the Home Office, which has a vast experience in this matter, must consider this period of 35 days to be unrealistic. In its own model by-laws it requires fairground operators to give only five days' notice. Indeed, the actual model by-law states:
"shall give to the proper officer of the council at least five days' notice in writing of the intention to hold such a pleasure fair, specifying the dates and the place at which such a pleasure fair is to be held".
Therefore, in the view of the Home Office, with its great experience, five days is all that is necessary. Suddenly to jump to 35 days is wrong. The only concession given when this 35 days is asked for is that the fairground operator can have recourse to the magistrates' court. But that concession to the operator is scarcely practicable, for the operator may well be earning his living in another part of the country and will be unable to take the matter to the magistrates' court in sufficient time for it to be dealt with before the fair is due to open. Therefore, it is an arbitrary extension of the time which can only be extremely damaging to those who operate these fairs, which are part of the make-up of the social life of our country. I reiterate the third reason I gave, that even if it could be established that more stringent powers are necessary it should be done in this instance by a normal Parliamentary procedure that covers the whole country.
I would add one final point: the sponsors of this Bill may wish to suggest to the Committee that there is a precedent for Clause 64. They may want to quote Section 246 of the Sheffield Corporation Act 1928. But I should like the Committee to bear in mind that what happened

1583
on that occasion, as distinct from what is now being suggested, was that the fairgrounds operators withdrew their opposition to Clause 246 because they were offered an agreement with the Sheffield authorities which was satisfactory to them, and according to which they could hold their fairs in 14 places. Sheffield was a case where mutual agreement was arrived at, which is a different matter indeed to a criminal sanction with a £500 fine such as is now envisaged in the clause for whose deletion I am asking. Therefore, I am suggesting that the four bases of my appeal stand up strongly with tradition and evidence on their side, and the only precedent that can even be whispered is one which is flimsy almost to the point of being irrelevant. I beg to move.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that they should not allow Clause 64 (Control of pleasure fairs) of the Bill unless they are satisfied:—

(1) that it falls within the principles for the consideration of private bills set out in paragraph 7 of the Report dated 16th April 1976 of the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Secretary of State for Wales on the County of South Glamorgan Bill, and

(2) that the matter is one which ought to be controlled by criminal sanction rather than by the planning law.—(Lord Harmar-Nicholls.)

5.32 p.m.
Baroness BACON: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord in this Instruction. I am interested to see that for one day at any rate he is an honorary Yorkshireman. South Yorkshire is an area which I know very well, and I was rather surprised that this clause came in a South Yorkshire Bill, although what the noble Lord has said about Sheffield—something of which I was previously unaware—probably accounts for it, because Sheffield, which was then a county borough, is now a part of the new South Yorkshire Metropolitan County.
I know the South Yorkshire area very well indeed, although I do not live in it but in the south of West Yorkshire. Local government reorganisation broke up many communities. One thing it did
1584
in Yorkshire in addition to many others was to break up the colliery areas of Yorkshire. Whereas they all used to be under the West Riding County Council, they are now divided between West Yorkshire County and South Yorkshire County. Except for the big cities like Sheffield and Rotherham, South Yorkshire colliery areas are mostly small towns and villages, as indeed are those in the south of West Yorkshire.
We have recently had in your Lordships' House the West Yorkshire County Bill and this did not include any such clause as Clause 64. What does that mean? It means that, in this area of colliery villages and towns, those parts which are in South Yorkshire will have to apply for permission from the district council, whereas those villages and towns which practically adjoin them but which are in the West Yorkshire County will not have to do so. It seems to me to be a ludicrous position to have this vast area of colliery towns with a law in one respect in one area and a different law in the other. As the Showmen's Guild members are going around with their fairs they will have to think, "Which side of the line am I? Do I need to apply to the district council to hold my fair, or need I not because it is just over some imaginary line?" This will mean great difficulties for the travelling showmen.
Those of us who know the Showmen's Guild know that they are a very responsible body. They have had disappointments over the years, because many of the sites which were traditionally sites for the old-fashioned fairs have become unavailable to them because of building and other reasons. This is going to be one more difficulty that they will have to overcome. Fairs are very popular indeed, particularly in my part of the world. They have been operating for many years, and I would hope that your Lordships' House would not do anything which would mean fewer of these fairs in the future. I therefore hope that your Lordships' House will agree to this Instruction to the Select Committee, because I believe there is no reason for such a law to operate in the South Yorkshire area.
Lord BROOKE of CUMNOR: My Lords, I too should like to give my strong support to my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls in the matter of this

1585
Instruction. When I became Home Secretary, which was about 17 years ago, I remember being informed by my advisers that, as Home Secretary, I had a statutory power to prohibit the holding of a fair. I was further advised that in the last 200 years no Home Secretary had thought fit to exercise that power, and certainly I was not tempted in that direction. Seriously, however, I cannot see why there should be the element of the criminal law introduced here where, so far as I am aware, planning regulations and planning law entirely cover the point at issue.
5.36 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. It was particularly nice to hear Lord Brooke of Cumnor giving us his advice again. May I say one word to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, about this Instruction. I have absolutely no reason to advise your Lordships against the Instruction. I am grateful to him for having made a slight wording change which has been helpful, but I still think it right that I should make some comment on the status of the report to which he refers in sub-paragraph (1) of his Instruction.
As he says, this was a report by the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office to the Select Committee on the County of South Glamorgan Bill. It set out certain principles which those Departments hoped would have the agreement of Parliament. These principles that were set out cannot, therefore, be said to guide the consideration of Private Bills by Committees, or to bind Parliament in any way. It is for this House to decide the principles that regulate Private Bills.
Moreover, as it turned out one of those principles set out in this report—the principle in paragraph 7(3), that where a need exists which is common to many authorities the matter should be dealt with by general legislation and not by Private Bill—was not accepted by this House. The House agreed to an Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, the effect of which was that where a proposal was to meet a need common to all, or a great number of, local authorities it should be disallowed only where the Government give a firm
1586
undertaking to introduce general legislation to meet that need. I would just make that point because I should not like it to be thought that this report from the two Departments to which the noble Lord referred is really doing more than making a suggestion.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that remark. He may have noted that in my submission I did not make that point because of the reasons the noble Lord has just put on the record. The report exists, and the report gives an indication rather like the speeches made earlier this evening as to the desirability of doing it. But one has to accept that to make it a general rule which has to be adhered to would not fit in with what I have already argued, that there are certain parts of the country where you have sometimes to make exceptions. I submit that my first point—ignoring the second one—which has been commented on by the noble Lord, is sufficient to bring forth sympathy and, I hope, the right action from this Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TYNE AND WEAR BILL [H.L.]
5.40 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Aberdare.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, this Bill should not leave us on its passage to a Committee without attention being drawn to Clause 5. For the reasons I am about to advance, that clause should, I submit, be dropped from the Bill. It would give one county council, Tyne and Wear, a power which the Government have recently decided, following the recommendations of an independent committee, should not be granted to local authorities pending further experience and consideration. This Private Bill is seeking to go further in Clause 5 than Governments or Parliament have been prepared to go in Public Bills in granting powers to local authorities. The Clause would set a precedent which some other local

1587
authorities might later try to follow in other Private Bills. In this way Clause 5 would, if allowed to remain in the Bill, prejudge an issue which still needs careful consideration before a decision is taken in relation to local government in general. I suggest it would be inappropriate and wrong to allow this clause to be enacted in a Private Bill affecting one local authority only.
The clause deals with conditions to be imposed when planning permission is granted in connection with mineral workings and associated waste material in order to achieve restoration when all the work is completed; the aim is to avoid dereliction and to protect the environment. So far in what I have described there is nothing new or controversial. The objectionable addition, however, is the power to force an applicant to enter into a bond with the local planning authority involving a guarantee and a sum of money. The intention is to guard against a firm going bankrupt or in some other way becoming financially unable to carry out restoration when the mining, quarrying or similar operations have been completed on the site in question. This eventuality, and the methods of providing beforehand for coping with it, have been the subject of much deliberation in recent years. The device of imposing a performance bond, as proposed in Clause 5, is controversial, since it is not generally regarded as the most effective or relevant remedy.
I must make it clear that I am in favour of conditions for restoration. Indeed, I myself stipulated them when I was Secretary of State for Scotland and had to take decisions under the town and country planning legislation. In those instances I considered the possibilities, fortunately rare, of default for financial reasons. I therefore accept that there is a problem in a limited form; it does exist and the question is what is the best solution. A committee under the chairmanship of Sir Roger Stevens was set up in 1972 to consider these matters in relation to mineral workings, the subject of this clause. That committee reported in 1976. It rejected bonds as a method for the time being, recommending that further experience and consideration were needed.
1588
The Department of the Environment in its Circular 58/78, issued only last August, contained the Government's views on the Stevens Committee's Report and it endorsed the Stevens Committee's view in this respect. It may be best if I quoted a relevant section from that circular:
"While the results of changes need to be seen, we would prefer to leave open the possibility of applying some form of guarantee or fund should the developing situation show it to be expedient and accordingly to make arrangements to keep the situation under continuing review. It is our hope that the industry will demonstrate to everyone's satisfaction that statutory arrangements are not necessary to guarantee restoration of the fullest standard but if that expectation is not fulfilled it may not be right to suspend action until the end of a ten year term".
Noble Lords will note that in that passage the Department of the Environment, besides speaking of a guarantee, also spoke of a fund, because there is another method, which has been under discussion, of a fund which would be available for dealing with situations where restoration could not be carried out. But both those methods mentioned are in suspense for the moment. I referred to the Department of the Environment's latest views because Tyne and Wear is in England; had it been in Scotland or Wales I should of course have been turning to the latest pronouncements from the Scottish or Welsh Offices.
I have been speaking of restoration. In this context it does not necessarily denote exact reinstatement to the original condition. That may not be feasible. Nor may it be the best legacy for the local authority, local community or general public from the work that has been carried out. Normally the operation of restoration includes removing any industrial scars—that is of first importance. After that, landscaping and the top soil being returned can also be part of the scheme. But to try to return to the previous contours and features may not be necessary or indeed desirable.
To give an example, where quarrying has taken place often a pond or lake is formed and it may be in the best interests of those in the area that it should then be used for sailing or fishing rather than be completely filled in again, and that could be arrived at by agreement. Taking a newer development, because it has dated since only 1971, planning permission has been given for the oil platform building

1589
sites on the sea shore. Here, enormous holes are excavated in the beach and it is important of course that planning permission should have in appropriate cases provisions for restoration when the work is finished, and that may be in eight, 10 or 15 years' time. I know of at least one such case in the North of Scotland where, rather than try to fill in the enormous dock that has been created, it would be much better to turn it into a marina for sailing boats and other craft, provided always that the clearing up on the other parts of the shore is properly carried out.
The present practice, which is to be encouraged, is that agreement is reached in each case, depending on the individual circumstances, and in some cases flexibility is needed in the agreement to enable the most suitable course to be adopted, because only at the end of the working, perhaps many years ahead, can the final state of the site be assessed and what will best conform with the surroundings be determined. For the surrounding land may have been built over or otherwise developed or changed in the meantime.
The Confederation of British Industry are greatly concerned about this clause. Many of their members engaged in mineral operations would be adversely affected if the clause were passed and the precedent allowed. The CBI are petitioners against this proposal in the Bill and will make their case to the Committee. I did not therefore table an Instruction for the House to consider today; the case will, I am sure, be well and fully explained in the Committee. My purpose is to draw attention at this stage to a clause which is contrary to national policy in relation to local government as a whole and is therefore an important point to be registered in your Lordships' House.
I strongly support the CBI in their objection to a power which would enable a single local authority to make a bond compulsory when planning permission is granted. Of course, there is no difficulty about voluntary arrangements; bonds are now entered into and are in use by the agreement of both parties in private transactions in particular and where the circumstances are accepted and relevant to both parties. In the case of agricultural land that is particularly so. As
1590
contemplated by the Stevens Committee and the Government in their circular, the whole question on a nationwide basis is to come up in the next few years. The system of a restoration fund will be considered as at least one other option to a performance bond. Some think that it is preferable, because there are disadvantages in bonds. For example, it is difficult to foresee the eventual costs where workings may continue for 40 or more years, and money is tied up which could be invested in industry. So, if and when a decision is reached, Parliament should be asked to consider the chosen method by the Government of the day in public legislation applying to all local authorities. The matter should not be prejudged in a Private Bill, dealing simply with a single local authority.
5.50 p.m.
The Earl of SHANNON: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for what he has just said; he has said practically everything that I was going to say. However, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention a little closer to one or two of the aspects of the report to which the noble Lord referred. It is the report issued by a Department of the Environment committee under the chairmanship of Sir Roger Stevens, and it is entitled Planning Control over Mineral Working. The report came from an expert committee which was set up to consider, among other matters, the very aspects of Clause 5 of the Bill to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has just drawn attention. A proposed bonding system does not per se refer to restitution of the land, but merely the finance for it. The committee investigated 145 cases in 13 different counties where the required restitution of the land was not complied with within the given time, and in only nine of the cases was financial failure of the operator a factor. I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to a quotation from paragraph 9.28 of the report:
"restoration could have been achieved by the proper and timely use of planning control measures which had not been applied".
Later, in the same paragraph it is stated:
"The evidence of survey … does not support the generalised assertions made in evidence that a major cause of dereliction is the avoidance by operators of their liabilities by resort to bankruptcy liquidation".

1591
Thus, we can see that financial failure is only a very minor cause for lack of reinstatement of workings. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, mentioned, the committee looked into the possibility of bonding and into other possibilities. On bonding, the committee reported in paragraph 9.31 of the report:
"The first system that we considered in this way involved imposing a statutory requirement for the restoration of each mineral working (or separate waste heap) to be guaranteed by a performance bond. From our discussions in London and Washington with representatives of bond-issuing agencies and their organisations it was clear to us that the normal commercial market would not underwrite bonds with the degree of freedom and flexibility required; many operators would be unable to secure bonds matched to their needs, in terms particularly of the period of coverage, and would consequently be unable to continue in business".
The other possibility referred to was the system of a fund which, it was suggested, could be provided by a levy on all operators in such a way that an operator who defaulted on his restoration liability, or who failed to meet a levy, would be removed from the list of operators in good standing with the fund and would be unable to continue mineral working. The committee considered such a scheme to be far preferable to bonding. The only way in which they saw bonding working at all would be as a kind of analogue to the Export Credits Guarantee Department, and if this were done, it would in the early stages be necessary to have access to public funds.
In its final recommendation, contained in paragraph 9.29 of the report, the committee said quite categorically:
"We therefore recommend that the situation should be kept under review during a period of five to 10 years following the full implementation of our other recommendations".
It is interesting to note that the other main recommendation in this field related to the proper monitoring of workings by the local authority, when considering the major cause of lack of restitution—and not the fear of someone going bankrupt.
I wonder why this particular local authority is seeking powers to implement a scheme, the feasibility of which has been roundly condemned after exhaustive inquiries by an expert committee of the Department of the Environment—a committee which was set up to examine this very subject. I also wish to draw your
1592
Lordships' attention to the fact that especially in view of present and impending inflation, any bond which might possibly be put up—and that is very doubtful, as we have heard in the committee's report—could well be of little value if and when it came to be claimed, particularly in view of the very long time-scale, which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, mentioned, of between 25 and 50 years in some industries. If your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading it will go to Committee. I hope that the Members of the Committee will satisfy themselves of some very special and exceptional reasons as to why, in the face of both an expert report to the contrary and directions from the Department of the Environment, this local authority should seek this particular power. I, for one, will listen with great attention to any such reasons on Report stage, unless the sponsors seek to withdraw the provision from the Bill.
5.58 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I hope that your Lordships will allow me to say a few words on a Bill which, although it relates to Tyne and Wear, has been discussed by a very distinguished Scotsman followed by a very distinguished Irishman, and I want to know who is speaking for the Tyne and Wear authority? It seems to me that there is much difference both in the legal system and in terrain between Scotland and my part of the world, and so I should like to know at what stage the authorities of Tyne and Wear are to be consulted as to what they really want. They may have quite different ideas. They may not be in full agreement with what has been said by the two noble Lords. I have here a copy of the Bill; it is enormous. It seems to me extraordinarily odd that we have to have a distinguished Scotsman and a distinguished Irishman saying what they think ought to be done in Tyne and Wear.
Therefore, I hope that whoever is to reply for the Government will say whether the authorities of Tyne and Wear are to be consulted in order to find out whether they agree with the points of view put forward by the two noble Lords. I find the situation very interesting, and almost amusing, because I cannot imagine that Tyne and Wear will fall in exactly with

1593
all the points of view put forward by these two distinguished noble friends of mine.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, may I make it clear straight away that I am not speaking for the Government, although I am speaking from this Dispatch Box. But, to answer the noble Baroness's question, this Bill will go to a Select Committee, and the promoters, the Tyne and Wear County Council, will have every opportunity to put their case to the Select Committee. May I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, for the points they have made on Clause 5. I shall certainly see that what they have said is drawn to the attention of the Select Committee.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

BANKING BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
VACCINE DAMAGE PAYMENTS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

KIRIBATI BILL [H.L.]
6.1 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty The Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Kiribati Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. The essential purpose of this Bill, in the words of the Long Title, is to:
"make provision for and in connection with the attainment by the Gilbert Islands of fully responsible status as a Republic within the Commonwealth under (he name of Kiribati".
1594
Before describing the contents of the Bill, I should like to express my apologies in advance for having to speak at some length. The reason for this will become apparent, I hope, later in my speech. But now, in accordance with custom, I shall begin by tracing briefly the history of the Gilbert Islands and the developments leading up to the introduction of the Bill.
The intention of the Bill is that Kiribati should become independent as its territory is at present constituted. It comprises 33 islands in all, including the Line Islands and the Phoenix Islands. The total area is 264 square miles, scattered across 2,000,000 square miles of the Pacific Ocean around the point at which the International Date Line cuts the Equator. The capital of the territory is Tarawa. The people are Micronesian, and the total population is about 56,000, the bulk of whom live in the Gilberts Group.
Britain's first official involvement in the islands was in 1877, when the Western Pacific High Commission was established in an endeavour to protect the islands in the region from being raided by black-birders for labour to work in plantations in South America, Fiji, Hawaii, Tahiti and Queensland. In 1888–89, Christmas, Fanning and Washington, in the Northern Line Islands, were annexed by Britain. A British Protectorate was declared in 1892 over the Gilberts Group and the neighbouring Ellice Islands, which are now Tuvalu. Banaba (Ocean Island) was annexed in 1900. The Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony succeeded the Protectorate in 1916, and was extended to include Banaba, Fanning and Washington Islands. Christmas Island was included in 1919, the Phoenix Islands in 1937 and the Central and Southern Line Islands in 1972.
During the Second World War the Gilberts were invaded by Japanese forces, and several islands were occupied. After fierce fighting at the battle of Tarawa in 1943, the Japanese were displaced, although Banaba remained occupied until 1945, when it was liberated by Australian forces. In January 1972 the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony was formally separated from the Western Pacific High Commission, and the Resident Commissioner became the first Governor of the Colony. As part of a continuous process of

1595
constitutional evolution, a ministerial form of government was created, with a House of Assembly and a Council of Ministers. In October 1975, with the agreement of the Gilbert Islands, the Ellice Islands separated from them to become Tuvalu. Full internal self-government was attained by the Gilbert Islands on 1st January 1977. There is a Council of Ministers headed by the Chief Minister and a House of Assembly consisting of 35 elected members, one ex-officio member (the Attorney-General) and a seat for a nominee of the Rabi Council of Leaders, representing the Banabans.
In May 1977 a Constitutional Convention in Tarawa reached agreement by consensus on each of the proposed provisions placed before it. In late November last year a full constitutional conference, with the participation of Banaban representatives, took place in London under my chairmanship. It was agreed that, subject to the approval of Parliament, the Gilbert Islands should become independent, as a republic within the Commonwealth, in early July 1979. The report of the conference was published as a White Paper (Cmnd. 7445), and presented to Parliament in January of this year.
I now come to the provisions of the Bill itself. Clauses 1 and 2 provide for the independence of the Gilbert Islands as a republic as from 12th July 1979. Clause 3 and the Schedule provide for the continuance after independence of laws operating in respect of Kiribati before independence subject to the consequential modification of certain enactments. Clauses 4 and 5 deal with nationality. They follow closely the similar clauses in the Tuvalu Act 1978. Perhaps I can take Clause 5 first. This provides for the retention of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies by persons with a close connection with the United Kingdom or a remaining dependency. Clause 4 provides that, subject to the exceptions in Clause 5, citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall lose that citizenship if, on independence, they become citizens of Kiribati. It also provides that, again subject to the exceptions in Clause 5, a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies who, or whose father, was born in Kiribati, or a woman who acquired that citizenship by reason of her marriage to such a citizen, but who
1596
does not become a citizen of Kiribati at independence, shall lose citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies if, on independence, he or she has the citizenship of some other country.
This departure from the usual provisions of an independence Bill was agreed with the Gilbert Islands Government because of the unique situation resulting from the division of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony into two, one of them achieving independence in advance of the other. The centre of administration of the former colony was at Tarawa. Consequently, persons not otherwise connected with what became the Gilbert Islands Colony were born there while their fathers were serving in the administration. These persons are, in the main, currently resident in Tuvalu, and became citizens of Tuvalu when that country achieved independence. But because of the accident of birth at Tarawa, they have until now retained citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. The Kiribati Constitution contains provision for such persons to acquire citizenship of Kiribati automatically at independence if they first renounce their other citizenship. The Gilbert Islands Government have given a firm undertaking to publicise this provision for the benefit of those who wish to take advantage of it. Thus those Tuvaluans have the option of acquiring Kiribati citizenship if they want it. They will, however, in any case cease to be citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. The clause is so worded as to avoid leaving anyone stateless. Clause 6 enables Her Majesty by Order in Council to make provision for the jurisdiction, practice and procedure of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in relation to appeals from the courts of Kiribati. Clauses 7 and 8 deal with interpretation and citation.
My Lords, it is at this stage that I would normally turn to more general matters not covered by the Bill: for example, prospects for the Gilbert Islands after independance, aid and technical assistance, and such matters. However, before proceeding to those matters, I should like to explain the Government's decision, as provided for in the Bill, that Banaba, or Ocean Island, as it is also known, should remain part of the Gilbert Islands on independence. The Banaban problem has been a long-standing one. It

1597
is a complicated subject. I therefore repeat my request that the House will bear with me if I deal with the subject at some length.
The Banaban issue has two aspects—constitutional and financial. The financial aspect has no direct connection with the present Bill. Nevertheless, I think it would be helpful if I touched on this aspect later in my statement.
Banaba was discovered by the British vessel "Ocean"—hence the name—in 1804. Phosphate was discovered there in May 1900, when the London-based Pacific Islands Company applied to the Colonial Office for a licence to mine it. The Colonial Office decided that the Resident Commissioner of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Protectorate should include the island in the protectorate, and in November 1900 Ocean Island was effectively incorporated into it.
By Order in Council of 10th November 1915 the protectorate was annexed as a colony. This Order in Council referred to islands covered by the Declarations of Protectorate of May and September 1892. Ocean Island was not mentioned in these declarations: it had already been annexed in 1900 and administered as part of the protectorate. A separate Order in Council was issued on 27th January 1916 to include it, together with Fanning and Washington Islands (in the Line Islands, 1,500 miles to the east), within the boundaries of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony.
As early as 1909, the British authorities had expressed disquiet about the fate of the Banabans when the phosphate was exhausted, and in 1931 some of the phosphate royalties were credited to a Banaban Provident Fund, whose purpose was to provide money for the purchase of a future home for the Banabans. The Banabans were loath to leave their homeland and for some years resettlement was not pursued. But in 1942, Rabi Island, in Fiji, was purchased freehold.
In August, 1942, the Japanese occupied Ocean Island and dispersed many of the Banabans to other Pacific islands. On Japanese surrender of the island in October 1945, the island was temporarily uninhabitable as a result of wartime depredations. After some initial misgivings, the Banabans, who had been brought together in Tarawa by the British authorities,
1598
agreed unanimously to go to Rabi with the option of permanent settlement there, on condition that, if all or any of them should wish to return to Ocean Island after two years, suitable transport would be arranged by the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony Government.
A secret ballot among Banabans on Rabi on whether they wished to stay there or return to Ocean Island was held in 1947, a large majority (270 to 48) electing to make Rabi their headquarters and home. A statement of intentions embodying Banaban land rights and rights of access was read out and explained fully to the Banaban community by officials of the then colonial government. I shall return to this later.
The present Banaban population is about 2,500. All except about 90 of them continue to live on Rabi (now part of independent Fiji) and they maintain only a rotating token presence on Ocean Island (now called Banaba). Many of the Banabans are Fiji citizens and virtually all of them are entitled to citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. The rights of land ownership on, and freedom of access to, Banaba under the 1947 statement of intentions are included in the present Gilbert Islands internal self-government Constitution.
Over the past decade, the Banabans have campaigned for the separation of Banaba from the Gilbert Islands. Their campaign has included unsuccessful appeals to the United Nations and to the British Government, and prolonged legal actions in the United Kingdom courts. The Banabans have based their claims to separation on three principal points. The first is that they are a different people from the Gilbertese; the second they had not until this century been governed by the Gilbertese; and the third that, since the Ellice Islands (now Tuvalu) were allowed in October 1975 to separate from the Gilbert Islands, so too should they.
Successive Gilbertese Governments have strongly resisted the Banabans' claim to separation, arguing that on legal, historical, ethnic and linguistic grounds, Banaba should remain part of the Gilbert Islands. The separation in October 1975 of the Ellice Islands from the Gilbert Islands took place with the full consent of the

1599
Gilbert Islands Government; it is, therefore, not a valid precedent for the granting of Banaba's separation. Moreover, the Gilbertese have argued that on geographical and practical grounds it is more sensible that Banaba remain part of the Gilbert Islands, from whose capital it is only 240 miles distant, rather than be associated with Fiji, from which it is separated by 1,400 miles of ocean.
Over a long period, successive British Governments have explored every possibility in an attempt to solve the Banaban problem, including the despatch to the region in 1977 of a special representative, Mr. Posnett, to report and make recommendations on the problem. The Government have continually encouraged the Gilbert Islands Government and the Banaban leaders to try to reach a mutually acceptable solution. The Government were therefore much encouraged when the two parties met in November 1977 in Bairiki (in the Gilbert Islands), when they passed 10 resolutions, including one for a referendum throughout the Gilbert Islands and Rabi on the separation of Banaba, and some resolutions calling for Britain to pay the Banabans considerable further sums of money. At this stage the Banabans did not link these proposals and, indeed, explicitly accepted the possibility that a referendum would go against them. Subsequently, however, they resiled from this position and said that the Bairiki resolutions should be regarded as a package. In other words, they were prepared to accept a referendum vote which might go against separation if the British Government met their financial demands.
The two sides met again in June 1978 in Tarawa (in the Gilbert Islands) but without success; although on this occasion the Banabans agreed to suspend their campaign for separation, again provided that the British Government gave them considerable sums of money. One understands a feeling about one's homeland, but it is a little difficult to accept it always as being the basis of an argument if from time to time a certain price is placed upon it.
The future status of Banaba therefore fell to be decided at the Gilbert Islands pre-independence constitutional conference held in London from 21st November to 7th December. I was the chairman
1600
of the conference. I had made clear well in advance of the conference that, in the absence of an agreement being reached between the Gilbertese and the Banabans in the meantime, the conference itself would need to decide the issue, and for this purpose the Banabans would be invited to put their case once more. The Banabans were represented by their whole Council of Leaders together with advisers.
The first week of the conference—nearly half the duration of this conference—was, at my direction, devoted exclusively to consideration of the future status of Banaba. I invited both sides once more to put forward their views and to raise any new points which might affect Her Majesty's Government's consideration of the subject. Ample opportunity was given to the participants to state their points of view. The Banabans reiterated their long-standing argument that Britain had joined Banaba to the Gilbert Islands in 1916 without consulting the Banabans. They expressed concern that the British Government could contemplate transferring the responsibility in the 1947 "Statement of Intentions", to which I have referred earlier, to an independent Gilbert Islands Republic.
They expresesd distrust that these undertakings could be guaranteed by entrenched clauses in an independent Gilbert Islands Constitution. They contended that only the separation of Banaba from the Gilbert Islands could safeguard the Banabans' rights to their homeland and that it was unfair and impracticable to expect them to live under two jurisdictions—that is, a "monarchical" Fiji and a "republican" Gilbert Islands. Their basic principle, on which they were not prepared to compromise, was that they would not settle for anything less than Banaba's separation from the Gilbert Islands. They wished to remain, at least for the time being, a separate British colony with the right, if they wished, to associate with Fiji. They had thus retreated from the position they had adopted at Bairiki and Tarawa; namely, that they were prepared to consider the possibility of remaining part of the Gilbert Islands in return for large sums of money.
The Banabans' demands were unacceptable to the Gilbert Islands' delegation who reiterated their equally strongly

1601
held views against separation. Nevertheless, the Gilbertese Chief Minister indicated that, within a solution which involved the retention of Banaba in the Gilbert Islands, his delegation were prepared to consider any concessions or safeguards the Banabans wished to propose.
In this situation, I adjourned the conference proceedings in order to consult my colleagues in the Government. I subsequently announced the British Government's decision that the Gilbert Islands would proceed to independence as at present constituted—that is, including the island of Banaba—but that special provisions should be included in the Independence Constitution safeguarding the Banabans' interests. On hearing the announcement, the Banaban representatives withdrew from the conference and refused to participate further.
This decision, the text of which is in paragraph 3 of the conference report (Cmnd. 7445) was based on our normal policy, and the generally accepted UN principles, on questions of self-determination, of respecting the wishes of the people as a whole within the existing boundaries of the territory to become independent.
The Gilbert Islands' delegation responded, I am bound to say constructively and co-operatively, to the inclusion and entrenchment of quite special Banaba provisions in their Independence Constitution. I regret that the Banaban representatives refused to take part. Those provisions are set out in paragraphs 62 to 69 of the conference report, and they deserve very careful study. They will, among other things, continue to ensure the Banabans' right of access to, and landownership on, Banaba, irrespective of whether the Banabans are Fiji citizens or become Kiribati citizens; they will afford them the right of representation in the Gilbertese House of Assembly, with their representative having the right of veto over any changes to the entrenched conditions; and will afford them the right of appeal to the Privy Council in any matters affecting the provisions. In addition, the Constitution will provide for an independent Commission of Inquiry to review the operation of the conditions after 5 years and to make recommendations; and the Gilberts' Chief Minister has expressed his Government's willing-
1602
ness to conclude an agreement or even a treaty with Fiji, if Fiji were willing, safeguarding the Banabans' rights in the Independence Constitution. These special provisions are entrenched in the Constitution to a degree unprecedented in my experience of such matters.
The Banabans have expressed concern lest the provisions not be honoured. I am confident that they will be: they have been fully honoured since 1947, and it would be discourteous, to say the least, to the Gilbertese people—and they are a Pacific area people, and those familiar with the area will know what I mean when I say that they have their own standards and a Pacific way and Pacific assumptions of what entails honour and behaviour—to suggest that they would violate their constitutional commitments. Indeed, I find it a little ironic that the Banabans are prepared to trust the British Government, of whom they have had many uncomplimentary things to say, but not their neighbours and kinsmen in the Pacific.
I assure the House that I personally and my Government have spared no effort to try to reach an agreed solution to the issue of Banaba's constitutional future. Faced with two parties with opposing views we believe that the decisions we took, in co-operation with the Gilbertese, have resulted in a fair and a workable solution, and that the Banabans should give it a chance. I am sure that the House will agree with the Government that the issue should not be allowed to delay the progress to independence of the Gilbert Islands, who in their period of self-government as a dependancy have shown a remarkable capacity for prudent and cheerful husbandry of their resources. That independence should not be delayed simply because one island cannot be satisfied totally about the safeguards which I believe are very substantial indeed—in fact are conclusive. We cannot rewrite history; but we can help, and we are helping, to provide for a viable future for the Gilbertese and for the Banaban community on Rabi.
My Lords, this exposition—a rather lengthy one—of the efforts of the Government over a long period of time to find a solution to the constitutional problem of Banaba will not have been in vain if I have succeeded in convincing your

1603
Lordships that we have done everything possible to find a compromise solution which is fair and just to all parties. There are nevertheless some for whom I have the deepest respect who believe that we should make one last effort to see if within the framework of the report of the conference the parties could not be further reconciled.
Such a suggestion has been made to me by the noble Baroness opposite and by her colleagues in this House and in another place. I should like to pay my respects to her and to her colleagues for putting forward the suggestion. Moreover, the Prime Minister of Fiji has made a similar proposal. I am prepared to accept the suggestion that a Minister should, before the Bill is read a second time in another place, visit the Pacific to discuss with the Gilbert Islands Government and the Rabi Council of Leaders, if they are willing, the special provisions to protect the interests of the Banabans. The Minister would also talk to the Government of Fiji, whose Prime Minister has told me he would welcome such a visit. The present plan is that my honourable friend, the Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Evan Luard, who was co-chairman with me of the Gilbert Islands constitutional conference, should make a visit in early March following an official visit to Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.
I must, of course, make clear that there can be no question of Her Majesty's Government resiling from the provisions recorded in the White Paper. This is an agreed report signed by the Chief Minister and myself, and I believe it is a most valuable document for resolving difficulties of this nature. The purpose of the visit will be to see how much further they can go to accommodate views and feelings on the basis of the White Paper, and to talk to everybody concerned in the most friendly and constructive manner possible. I am quite sure that my honourable friend is the very man to do so. Our object would be to discuss with those directly concerned the safeguards for ensuring that the interests of the Banabans are protected within a united Kiribas, in the hope that the two views might yet be reconciled.
I mentioned earlier that the financial aspect of the Banaban issue had no direct bearing on the future status of Banaba,
1604
which is a purely constitutional matter. But I should like to acquaint the House with the financial provisions we are making to help the Banabans. As the House will know, following the Banabans' unsuccessful legal action against the Crown, the partner Governments of the British Phosphate Commission, that is the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, offered in May 1977 10 million Australian dollars (about £6·7 million sterling) for a fund for the Banabans' future. That is in addition to the revenues which have been paid for many years to the Banabans as also to the Gilbertese and are continuing to be paid until the end of mining, later this year. In addition the partner Governments are prepared to consider paying back-dated interest on this sum, which would provide about a further 1·5 million Australian dollars. These amounts are additional to the generous 1·25 million Australian dollars offered by the BPC in settlement of the Banabans' actions against them, in which the court awarded damages of 14,000 dollars only.
The Government have also offered the Banabans up to £1 million for development projects on Rabi island where, as I said, the great majority of them live and have been living since 1947. In addition, the Government are prepared to finance a full resources survey of Banaba itself, their former home, to ascertain its potential for habitation and development after phosphate mining ends this year, should any of them choose to live there, and to discuss any recommendations which the survey report makes. I cannot, of course, tie my right honourable friend the Minister of Overseas Aid in advance of the issue of such a report, if they agree that it should be made; but I think the House will understand me if I say that I have every confidence that if such a valuable survey as this could be reported to be in favour of redeveloping Ocean Island, to overtake some of the mistakes—some of the excesses perhaps—made in another age according to the lights of a different age, to restore the island, then this country and this Government, indeed any Government, would most favourably look on the recommendations of such a survey. I am sure the House will agree that these are generous offers to a community numbering about 2,500. They should help to provide them with a viable future.

1605
I have spent a long time on the Banaban problem. I make no apology since I know this reflects the interests of many of your Lordships; but the purpose of this Bill is to confer independence on the Gilbert Islands. I now return to the economic prospects for the Gilbert Islands after independence. This will depend greatly on the success in establishing a tuna fishing industry and the early development of other revenue-earning projects, since revenues from phosphate will cease in 1979 when phosphate mining on Banaba ends. They will need to rely on aid donors for the development of these projects. In addition to our own substantial British contribution, aid will be available from the European Development Fund, and both Australia and New Zealand have aid programmes. Japan has also indicated her interest in providing assistance.
We have for many years operated a programme of capital aid and technical assistance for the Gilbert Islands, and this will continue after independence. Apart from our substantial programme of technical co-operation, we shall be providing development aid of up to £15·5 million sterling in the first four years of independence. Additionally there will be special financial assistance totalling £5·3 million sterling to support the budget of the Gilbert Islands after phosphate revenues cease.
Many people have contributed to the outcome of the processes which have led to the introduction of this Bill and in particular I should like to thank my right honourable friend the Minister of Overseas Development for her help in forming an independence settlement specially suited to the needs of the Gilbert Islands. Above all, I think this is the occasion to congratulate the Gilbert Islands Government and especially Mr. Ieremiah Tabai, the Chief Minister, for the statesmanlike way in which they have worked towards achieving a successful future for the Gilbert Islands. Our long association with their country and the friendship between us will endure, I am sure, for many years to come. My Lords, the Gilbert Islands have already expressed their intention of joining the Commonwealth, and it is as fellow members of the Commonwealth that we have the prospect of continuing the close ties which exist
1606
between us. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Goronwy-Roberts.)
6 39 p.m.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, the Minister has made a most comprehensive statement regarding the contents and significance and the surrounding circumstances of the Kiribati Bill now before your Lordships' House. I know that Members on all sides of this House would wish me to thank him for the care and attention he has given to the detail which is engendered by this Bill.
The Gilbert Islands, for many decades a peaceful British dependency, are achieving independence as a sovereign State. As such, we on this side of the House, with the Minister, warmly welcome the independence of Kiribas as a new member of the community of nations, a future member of the Commonwealth, possibly and hopefully, a signatory to the EEC Lomé Convention and eventually perhaps a member of the United Nations.
In a world of increasing interdependence and struggles for power—we do not have to be reminded today of the tensions in South-East Asia—for strategic, commercial and other reasons, no country, big or small, can ignore the need for friends and allies; and we in the United Kingdom look forward to a new relationship with the Gilbert Islanders, based on respect for their sovereign rights and long years of co-operation.
As the Minister has already said, the Gilbert Islanders have in the last two years been responsible for their own internal affairs, and no one who has watched their progress would fail to appreciate the able and dignified way in which their new tasks and responsibilities have been assumed by the Chief Minister and his colleagues. Under the Bill, the 33 coral atolls, within about 2 million square miles of sea, will, in accordance with the expressed wish of their inhabitants—about 55,000 to 60,000 people—become an independent sovereign territory and constitute an independent republic as from 12th July.
One of the first questions which I should like to put to the Minister—and I give him notice that there will be a certain

1607
number of questions from this side of the House—is in connection with claims to the Northern Line and Phoenix Islands, because this is an important issue which is causing some anxiety, and with justification. I wonder whether the Minister can give any indication of the action that the Government are taking to ensure that the right to claims made by Her Majesty's Government in relation to these two sets of islands—the Northern Line and Phoenix Islands—which are now within the boundaries of the colony, will accrue to the Government of Kiribati under the principle of rights or claims which pass on independence, or under State succession. I should be very grateful if we could have some reply on that question.
The noble Lord the Minister has covered a vast number of points and I shall try to avoid repeating what he has said, where we are in complete agreement as to the basis of the facts and as to the comments that he has made. The report of the Gilbert Islands constitutional conference, held in London in November and December of last year, has set out—I think very fairly and clearly—some of the difficulties which have faced both the Government and the representatives of the Gilbert Islanders in drawing up a fair and workable Constitution, which will guarantee protection for the individual rights of all citizens of the Gilbert Islands.
Noble Lords will be aware, as we are reminded in the Press today, of action taken by the Banabans on Ocean Island, which undoubtedly reflect the deep-felt reaction of those people to the present Bill. There has been a formidable and widely publicised account on behalf of the rights and aspirations of the Banabans, which undoubtedly reveals—and I think that this was confirmed in the High Court of the United Kingdom—that these people have suffered considerable injury, and, as the Minister himself indicated, most people accept that they have a genuine grievance. But—and there is a "but" —in the terms of Mr. Justice Megarry, in his judgment,
"forceful presentation has been marred by significant omissions of what was true and by intemperate assertions of what was false".
Their land, exploited by the British Phospates Commission with an inadequate financial reward for the mining operations which have contributed to
1608
making a large part of the island uninhabitable, was later devastated by the Japanese in 1942. But it remains for the Banabans the place to which they are, understandably, deeply and passionately attached, to which some of them may wish to return, and, in order to preserve that right, wish to secede from the Gilbert Islands of which they have formed an integral part for the last 60 or more years.
What is of concern to my noble friends is that Britain's honour has been impugned, and it has been suggested that Britain has a moral duty to agree to the present request of the Banabans for the independence of Ocean Island. It is, therefore, necessary to look closely at the facts which, from all the evidence, appear very much in the way that the noble Lord the Minister has presented them to your Lordships' House. However, there are one or two questions which I should like to ask him for clarification, both for the benefit of your Lordships and for those who have great concern over the matter of statistics.
The Chief Minister of the time, in February 1975, wrote a letter to The Times of the United Kingdom and said that of the 336 men who were evacuated from Ocean Island,152 were not Banabans at all, but came from other Gilbert Islands and are now living on Rabi. The Chief Minister also pointed out that of the approximately 2,000 people living on Rabi at that date, some 250 had both parents born on Gilbert Islands other than Ocean; and in paragraph 13 of the paper prepared by the Gilbert Islanders, 65 per cent. had one or both parents born in Gilbert Islands other than Ocean. I should be grateful if, when he comes to reply, the Minister could confirm this or indicate whether it is in any way incorrect, because clearly this matter of statistic, which can be misleading, puts a different gloss on the situation in regard to the composition of the Banabans now living on Rabi.
I have been given to understand by a very learned anthropologist, Professor Strathearn of University College London—and this opinion is, I believe, shared by many other anthropologists of similar standing—that Banabans are Micronesian people of the same race as the other Gilbert Islanders. They share the same gods, the same language and the same

1609
cultural traditions. Also, there has been considerable intermarriage of Banabans with other Gilbert Islanders. Should further evidence of this be needed, I am given to understand that the wife of the present Chief Minister is herself a Banaban. But the genuine grievances of the Banabans have been partly concerned, as the noble Lord indicated, with the important question of compensation, both annual and in capital terms, for the phosphates extracted from Ocean Island and for the destruction of their island.
The more important anxiety undoubtedly stems from the statement of intent of 1947, to which I shall refer shortly. But it is fair to say at this point that the Gilbert Islanders, as a whole, have reason to complain, since Ocean Island is part of the territory of the Gilbert Islands and has been its main source of wealth. In the case brought before the High Court for compensation, it was not within the competence of the court to make an award against Her Majesty's Government, but the outcome was that the British Government offered compensation of something over £6 million which, together with annual revenue, makes the Rabi inhabitants the richest population per capita in the Pacific Islands—and very good luck to them!
It may be that this is still not adequate to restore Ocean Island to a habitable condition, and it may be something which the Government are prepared to look at. In fact, I think that the Minister has already given an indication that they are prepared to do so. We are pleased, once again, to have an undertaking from the Government that they have offered to initiate a scientific survey of the economic prospects of the island, and it is very much hoped that this survey will be agreed to, because it will undoubtedly be of benefit to all the Gilbert Islanders, and, in particular, the Banabans. We believe it essential that in this House we should be satisfied that Ocean Island will be rehabilitated and restored in such a way that the Banabans can, should they wish, return once more to their island.
While considering the legitimate financial concern of the Banabans, I should like to put a question to the Minister. I shall be grateful if he can indicate what conclusions, if any, Her Majesty's Government have come to in regard to the control
1610
of the trust fund set up to protect the Banabans' interests. I should like to know whether the Banabans will have complete freedom to operate that fund themselves. Of even greater importance, apart from that financial matter, is the demand for independence on which the Banabans are now insisting, and to which is being attached the question of Britain's moral responsibility.
As I understand it, the undertakings given by the British Government of the day to the Banabans in 1947, which are known as the statement of intent, never included the question of independence at that time. However, it appears that the distinction between land ownership and right to return, and the question of sovereignty, has been eroded in the argument. But at no time was it then suggested that Ocean Island should pass out of the sovereign territory of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands colony. Again, I should be grateful if the Minister could comment when he winds up at the end of the debate. However, the statement of intent included an inalienable right to return to Ocean Island, respecting this deep-seated feeling, to which we have already referred, of the Banabans for their land, and covered both the right of ownership and the right of access to the island.
All of these provisions are entrenched in the new Constitution which is set out in the report on the constitutional conference. To the best of my knowledge and belief, they must be among the most generous terms ever provided for a minority, whether on the attainment of independence or in any treaty provisions that I have ever come across concerning minority groups. Gilbert Island nationality has been offered to those who adopted Fiji nationality in 1970. Again I would ask the Minister whether he can give any indication of how many Banabans acquired Fijian nationality. I understand that very few Banabans acquired Fijian nationality, but I should be grateful if an indication of the numbers involved could be given to your Lordships. The Banabans acquired Fijian nationality when Fiji gained her own independence in 1970.
Other provisions of benefit to the Banabans include, as the noble Lord has already indicated, a seat in the House of

1611
Assembly, regardless of Fijian or Kiribatian nationality—again a unique provision—and a right of veto over any change in legislation concerning the Banabans: another unique provision. In my modest opinion, the Gilbert Islanders have shown themselves to be generous and statesmanlike in not only accepting but offering these provisions, made none the easier, as again the noble Lord indicated, by the withdrawal of the Banabans from the relevant discussions.
As has so often been said, Les absents ont toujours tort. I think that it was a great pity that the Banabans were not able to persuade themselves that it would have been both to the benefit of themselves and of the Gilbert Islanders had they managed to remain at that conference. This is no criticism of the action taken by the Banabans; they were justified in taking any action they wished. But it did not help their own case in this difficult situation when so many people were trying to reach a satisfactory solution to what is clearly a very difficult problem. We are concerned as to whether Her Majesty's Government have looked closely enough at the possible consequences of one or two of these provisions in their capacity as still for the time being the colonial power involved.
While dual nationality is allowed in the Gilbert Islands, may I ask the Minister whether or not it is the case that in Fiji it is prohibited by Fijian domestic law? Again, may I ask what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken to resolve this question with the Prime Minister of Fiji and his advisers? It is useless to pretend in this case that Her Majesty's Government have done all that they can when this provision is prohibited by domestic law.
Another provision which raises certain queries relates to the steps which the Government envisage will be taken to ensure that when the British Phosphates Commission retire from Ocean Island—which we understand will be shortly—the land will be returned to the landowners, either collectively or individually. Will the Government ensure that there is some form of legally binding instrument which returns these lands to their owners, or, alternatively, will the Minister comment on what is the legal position of the Banabans in relation to their interest in
1612
the land of Ocean Island? Obviously this is a question of deep concern, and possibly the Government will be able to allay the fears of those who are afraid that they will have lost certain rights over their own land.
These are two points which could be raised by Mr. Luard when he goes to the Pacific, an initiative which, as the Minister pointed out, was proposed by my colleagues. We very much welcome and are grateful to the Minister for his response to this proposal. The co-operation of the Prime Minister of Fiji would certainly be invaluable, since the Banabans live on Fiji and Fiji is a nation which plays an important part in the area. Therefore, any contribution that they can make to assist in entrenching still further the safeguards for the Banabans could be in the interests of all parties to this problem.
May I go on record as saying that we on this side of the House also feel very strongly that our friends in the Gilbert Islands should be able to proceed to independence as rapidly as possible. Equally, it must be in their interests, as well as in the interests of the Banabans, the Fijians and the British, to ensure a long-lasting solution to the anxieties of the Banabans concerning Ocean Island. This is why we attach great importance to Mr. Luard's mission to the Pacific. We hope that he will return with an understanding between the parties that will do justice to them all. The Minister will no doubt realise that it will be difficult to make progress with the Bill until we receive a report on Mr. Luard's mission, but on this basis we are prepared to give the Bill a Second Reading.
6.55 p.m.
Lord McNAIR: My Lords, the beginning is easy. We can all offer a warm welcome to Kiribati, soon to be an independent Republic within the Commonwealth. They have, of course, an absolute right to choose a republican form of Government, if they so desire. After all, some of our best friends are republics, We can all be glad, too, that they will be joining us and so many other friendly countries in the Commonwealth. Their life will be hard, but they are used to that. They will probably remain poor, but they are used to that, too. We all wish them well.

1613
I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, needed to apologise for taking time. This is not a straightforward, normal independence Bill. As noble Lords have already seen, it bristles with difficulties. The point is that if the Almighty had never created Ocean Island or if, having submerged it under the sea for hundreds or thousands—or was it millions?—of years, He had never caused its mountain top to re-emerge with its huge guano deposits mysteriously transmuted into phosphate of lime, then this would be a matter of three or four speakers in 40 minutes and the Bill would have passed with general acclaim.
Let me make it clear that I want the Bill to pass. I shall do what little I can to help it to pass, but not in 40 minutes. That would be a discourtesy and an injustice to a fine people, and a most unlucky people, for whom we have been, and still are, responsible and who have suffered grievously over the years at the hands of various agents—ourselves, I think, included.
I suppose that the temptation to quote oneself is one of the nastiest symptoms of approaching senility, and my reckless intention of yielding to it is probably another, but it is only a line or two of Hansard. When in May of last year we were discussing the independence of Tuvalu, I ventured to suggest that:
"… coconuts and fish may well be a safer economic base for a nation of atoll dwellers than, for example, phosphates".—[Official Report; 9/5/78; col. 899.]
I was, of course, thinking of Ocean Island when I said that, and I recall these words only to show that it is not just in the last few weeks that I have become aware of the Banaban story.
However, in the last few weeks, like several other noble Lords, I have been subjected to a veritable megatonnage of propaganda from the organisation called the Justice for the Banabans Campaign. This has met with a limited response from people supporting the point of view of the Gilbertese Government and from Mr. Tabai himself, the Chief Minister. If arguments could be won by sheer weight of paper, it would be a walk-over, but there is such a thing in propaganda as overkill. I freely admit that I have been unable to read everything which has reached me from the campaign. I tried, but I found it impossible.
1614
I am, however, deeply indebted to a remarkable book, one which must certainly be known to many of your Lordships. The title is Treasure Islands and the author is Pearl Binder. This is a finely written, committed work, written frankly and, I would say, justifiably from the Banaban point of view—and written by someone who did not just spend a few days on each island, which is all that most observers have been able to do. This author spent a whole winter, and it cannot have been a very comfortable winter, living on the Banabans' new home of Rabi, learning about their ancient culture and customs, getting to know them and coming to love them. I hope that is a sufficient acknowledgement of my debt to this book, on which I shall draw very heavily. Indeed, I doubt whether any noble Lord who has not read Treasure Islands can easily grasp the full complexity and poignancy of this story. Conversely, I doubt whether any noble Lord who has read the book will disagree with me when I say that it seems to me that this is one of the darkest stains on our past imperial honour; one we have not yet washed out and one that cannot just be left there to haunt us for all future time.
This may be the best place to put in a reference to the news report yesterday of the petrol bomb attacks on mining installations on Ocean Island. I feel that we do not yet know enough for safe comment. The timing of that act is extraordinary. It cannot conceivably do any good to the cause of the Banabans. My only confident comment therefore is that if petrol bombs were thrown by Banabans then they were acting in total conflict with all their traditions and they would certainly be condemned by their own wise leaders. It is completely out of character and I am sure that we do not yet know all the facts.
The Banaban story cannot be told in full. The noble Lord did his best and I may be able to fill in one or two gaps. From that so-called "contract" in 1900 between the company and the then illiterate islanders, negotiations being conducted through a very indifferent interpreter, the company was, for £50 a year, to extract the phosphates for 999 years. When only 13 of those years had passed this deal was already being denounced by our own colonial administrator as iniquitous. Yet out of that shrewd investment of £50 a year, millions

1615
of pounds of profit have been made. The farmers of Australia and New Zealand have enjoyed cheap phosphatic fertilisers and the consumers of their products, which includes everyone in this House, I dare to say, have enjoyed relatively cheap food.
I must hurry over the Banabans' appalling experiences during the Second World War, at the end of which some of them, along with other Gilbertese, were the victims of a massacre, one of the ghastliest of all the Japanese war crimes. There was one survivor on Ocean Island. The remaining Banabans had been scattered by war all over the Pacific. We collected them up and settled them on Rabi—which, as we have heard, they had bought—an island in the Fiji group. It can be argued that this was the best thing to do for them at that time. Indeed their own great leader, Tebuke, said that this was the best thing that the British ever did for them. I suspect that Pastor Tebuke has a certain gift of irony, but that is what he is supposed to have said. What is beyond dispute is that it was exactly what the company wanted us to do. "Get them out of the way and leave us to exploit what is left of the island in peace "was the company attitude.
There they are to this day, 1,400 miles from Ocean Island on their new home of Rabi, where they appear to enjoy mutually satisfactory relations with the Fiji Government which, as I read it, has behaved admirably throughout the whole case. Some young Banabans are attending Suva University. They are making a life for themselves on Rabi but they have a yearning to go home and they have an enduring sense of having been swindled.
This is where I think the Banabans have been badly advised, and in parenthesis I suggest that anyone who takes it upon himself to give professional advice to unsophisticated people about Western ways is accepting a very heavy responsibility. It needs humility and it needs great self-restraint. It must be so easy to tell them what they want to hear and so very difficult to tell them that some aspiration is so impossible of fulfilment that it would be a waste of time and money to pursue it.
1616
I think they have been badly advised to link together their two claims, the territorial and the financial. These should have been kept separate. The effect of linking them together is that insistence on the one impedes progress on the other, and this, no doubt, is how it came to be that, having at first accepted the offer made by our Foreign Secretary—referred to by the noble Lord—of the 10 million Australian dollars, they then changed their minds and turned the offer down; on whose advice I do not know but they turned it down because they would not relinquish their other claim to separate sovereignty over Ocean Island.
This is where I completely part company with the Justice for the Banabans Campaign. This territorial claim seems to me to be in the realm of fantasy: a political and administrative nonsense. It is suggested that Ocean Island, which happens geographically to be in the Gilbertese archipelago, should be said to be in some way in Fiji. This the Gilberts will never agree to and I cannot see why we should expect them to. We do not right the wrongs done to the Banabans by doing another wrong to the Gilbertese. And even if it did not fly in the face of all reason and geography, there is a very practical objection to this strange idea. It is that Ocean Island enjoys fantastic variations in rainfall and in drought years it must have an administration close at hand to call on.
No, my Lords, that cannot be the right answer and yet a right answer must be found. May I tentatively make three suggestions for others, I hope, to improve upon. First—and I know this will have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts—I suggest that we must pass this Bill. This will bring it painfully but finally home to the Banabans and perhaps to their advisers that Ocean Island is a Gilbert Island and that it is with the Gilbert Island's Government—the Kiribati Government—that they have to negotiate their rights to Ocean Island. It must be said that the Gilbert Islands Government has been, and continues to be, extremely generous and surely, on the basis of their 15-point offer, these two groups can come to some mutually acceptable agreement—these groups which are already, as the noble Baroness pointed out, so heavily intermarrying.

1617
Secondly, would it not be possible and politic for Her Majesty's Government to place the 10 million Australian dollars already offered in a fund where it can appreciate while these problems are being solved? Lastly, what about the island itself? We must remember that the phosphates are virtually worked out and the island, as a result, virtually uninhabitable. It is a gruesome moonscape of deep holes and coral pinnacles. What is to be done with it? "Leave it to the birds", says the company, which has made millions out of it, and indeed there might be something to be said for leaving it as a grim monument to man's inhumanity to man. But that is not what the Banabans want.
So I come to my third and last suggestion, and I am delighted to find that the noble Lord has already half accepted it. In a phrase, I suggest partial and progressive restoration. We are no longer obliged or able to act alone. Whatever we do must be done in co-operation with the other Governments concerned, the Australians, the New Zealanders, the Gilbertese and Fiji. Is it too late, I wonder, for this to be on the agenda of the next meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers. Might we not be able to tap the resources and the knowledge and in some way act under the aegis of the FAO? We do know how to do it. We have all the necessary machinery.
We could, bit by bit, restore this ravaged island to habitability. Coconuts are undemanding trees, but they must have some soil. If ships can ferry thousands of tons of phosphates out, could they not ferry hundreds of tons of topsoil in? There will be a bill to pay, of course, and if our laws do not enable us to compel the Phosphate Commission to pay the bill then that is our fault for having such inadequate laws, and we must make our contribution. We can be sure the Banabans will make theirs. As I see it, this could be a concerted pilot project, an example which might be followed in many parts of the world. Something like it we must attempt if we are to stop those two words "Ocean Island" being a lasting reproach to our civilisation, and turn them instead into some kind of a symbol of belated justice and of hope.
7.12 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am quite sure that Members of this House on all sides will welcome the prospect that the peoples of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands are to have their independence. It is almost a romantic idea that this group of atolls scattered about the Pacific should take their own government into their hands and find some way of harmonising their future with the industrialised world. All of us will wish the peoples of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands success as they undertake that great project.
I shall be speaking mostly about the Banabans, but speaking of them I am also thinking of the peoples of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, because I think it is quite clear that unless some agreement is reached between those respective peoples the future of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands will be made much more difficult. The story of the Banabans is one of the most sorry and tragic in all the history of the colonial régime. I do not propose to repeat it because a description was given of it by the Vice-Chancellor when the Banabans sued for greater finance. That is on record and need not be repeated. But the real tragedy for the Banabans was the discovery of phosphate deposits on their island. This beautiful and fertile island has been destroyed almost as though a bomb had fallen on it. Over the greater part of the island no trees or flowering bushes still remain; the birds departed; it is a dead waste.
The phosphates, exploited by the consortium of which the British, Australian and New Zealand Governments were a part, were directed towards the benefit of the peoples of Britain, Australia and New Zealand and it is they who have enjoyed the fruits of the destruction of that lovely island. The noble Lord, Lord McNair, has referred to an occurrence which has been reported today, that a group of Banabans attempted to destroy one of the mining installations on Ocean Island. I think this is the first time that any violence has occurred, and I deplore it, but I was interested to note that Mr. Ron Elliott, the Ocean Island manager for the Phosphate Commission, said, "I do not think the Banabans meant to harm anyone. Their objective was machinery. "I can understand their intense feeling as

1619
they have seen their island destroyed by the exploitation of the phosphate deposits.
My Lords, I turn to the constitutional issue which is the main subject of our discussion. While the Gilbert and Ellice Islands became a British protectorate as far back as 1892, with the agreement of the representatives of the indigenous peoples of those islands Ocean Island remained a separate autonomous community. It was not made a part of the Protectorate of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands. It was only annexed by the British Government in 1900, and annexed quite separately from the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, because of the discovery of the phosphate deposits. There was no consultation with the Banaban people about their loss of independence. It was just an imposed idea by the British Government, because of the value of the phosphate deposits found upon that island. In November 1915, after their representatives had been consulted and agreed, the Gilbert and Ellice Islands were ceded to the Crown as a colony. That was only after discussions had taken place with the representatives of the people. A few weeks later, in January 1916, without any consultation at all with the people of Ocean Island, with the Banaban community, Ocean Island, by a decree of Britain, was made a part of the colony of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands. One of the reasons undoubtedly was that the phosphate wealth would help to finance the new colony without a charge upon the British Exchequer.
The World War began in 1914. The Japanese occupied Ocean Island. They imposed forced labour. There were heroic Banabans who resisted the Japanese administration and there were mass executions of them. Others became refugees and reassembled on the Gilbert Islands after the war, and it was then that the British Government prevailed upon them not to return to Ocean Island—where they would have interrupted the processes of the phosphate exploitation—and secured their consent to moving to the Island of Rabi in Fiji as a second home. The Banabans agreed to remain on Rabi Island only after the British Government had given an undertaking that they would be allowed to return to their own homeland.
1620
Reference has been made already to the statement of intentions which the British Government signed. It is known generally as "The Covenant". That statement of intentions is absolutely central to the issues which we are discussing tonight. It began with the words:
"The Banabans' decision to reside on Rabi Island shall in no way affect any right to lands possessed by the Banabans on Ocean Island".
That was a guarantee by the British Government; it was an agreement with the Banabans. Now, without the consent of the Banabans, it is proposed that that agreement between the British Government and them should be transferred to another sovereign power.
I recognise that the Bill which we are now discussing includes an entrenched clause to maintain that guarantee. I submit that all recent history proves that entrenched clauses in any Constitution do not decide that they will be carried out by subsequent Governments to that which has adopted the Constitution. The Banabans, in addition to their deep determination to a claim of self-determination and independence, have no faith in entrenched clauses. Recent history justifies their view. From the days when Great Britain handed independence to the Afrikaaners in South Africa with entrenched clauses guaranteeing the rights of the African people, to the present time, the world is scattered with Governments—which include in their Constitution the Declaration of Human Rights—to whom those entrenched clauses have become of no value at all.
There is another reason why the Banabans are justified in their scepticism. In the last 20 years, indeed ever since the conclusion of the last World War, history has shown that separate communities have succeeded in gaining their independence from unions to which they previously belonged. Pakistan was an example of separation from the Indian Union in 1947, followed by Bangladesh which also won its independence. There is the case of the Cayman Islands and Jamaica which withdrew and asserted their own independence from the West Indian Federation. And, quite recently, there has been the case of Anguilla which has insisted on independence from its identity with St. Kitts. Therefore, we are finding today that one may build a union or a colony composed of many different territories,

1621
but in fact parts of those territories will insist upon their independence.
I want to conclude, as I always try to do, on a constructive note. Fiji has proposed, as I understand the noble Baroness has proposed, that there should be discussions still between representatives of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, the Banabans, Fiji and this country, to find a settlement of this problem. Fiji has urged that those further discussions should take place before the Bill is passed.
I should like humbly to pay a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts. I recognise that in all these discussions he has sought agreement and he has sought to gain the right of people to have self-government and expression. His speech tonight was notably fair in presenting the Bill. He concluded with a proposal which I very much welcome. As I understand it, he suggested that before the Bill becomes law there should be further discussions—discussions including representatives of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands, the Banabans, Fiji and this Government—seeking a solution to the problem.
I venture to make one suggestion. There is this scepticism about entrenched clauses in the Constitution of one Government. May I suggest to the noble Lord that, if he enters into these discussions, a guarantee of the rights of the Banabans should not merely be in the Constitution for the Gilbert and Ellice Islands' indepence. That guarantee, which was first given by Her Majesty's Government, should be endorsed by Her Majesty's Government. The Commonwealth might be brought in; Fiji might be brought in. If there could be a guarantee of these rights of the Banabans, as is in the Bill—but arousing scepticism because it is only in this Bill—and if it could also be endorsed by the British Government, which first gave the guarantee, and by the Commonwealth, I think that the further discussion which the noble Lord has proposed might achieve success. I very much hope that he will consider that proposal.
7.32 p.m.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, I should like to begin by apologising to the Minister for not having been present to hear his opening sentences. I want to join with
1622
previous speakers in welcoming the progress towards independence of the Gilbert Islands. But tonight I wish to speak only on the question of Ocean Island and the Banaban community. Again, I shall limit myself solely to the constitutional side of this and not to the financial side. I submit that it is incumbent upon us and upon Parliament in total to get this issue right. If we are unable to do so, what hope have we in the future when it comes to the questions of the Falkland Islands, Belize and Gibraltar? We are considering a very small community of 2,500 people, about 90 of them on Ocean Island and the remainder on Rabi. It is very important that this small community should not be left with a sense of disillusionment with their treatment by Britain.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has outlined most of the relevant points in history, and I follow him on nearly all of them. I should just like to add that in relation to their numbers the Banaban islanders contributed very large sums to Britain in the course of the two world wars, and even in 1947 they contributed to relief work in Portsmouth and Plymouth, as I think my noble friend Lady Vickers will be mentioning. I believe that one should place very great importance on the 1947 statement of intention by the British Government, which was solemnly reaffirmed on 31st March 1967. That relates, of course, to ownership and access to Ocean Island.
To take all these points together appears to me to constitute a very heavy moral obligations on this country, and an obligation to ensure that however negotiations have proceeded up till now, the Banaban people are not left with a sense of betrayal; for there can be no doubt about their very strong community identity and their very strong wish and desire to return to Ocean Island.
As has been said, the present Bill keeps Ocean Island within the independent Gilbert Islands, and the White Paper sets out safeguards to be entrenched in the future Constitution by Order in Council. Those safeguards have been devised for the Banaban people, but alas! although they were invited to discuss them, they were not actually consulted as to what the safeguards should be. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, in asking what, indeed, is the value of entrenched

1623
clauses. The history of similar arrangements elsewhere can only be said to be very discouraging. One might well ask why future administrations in the Gilbert Islands should respect in perpetuity something which at this moment is clearly an obligation falling upon Her Majesty's Government.
A further problem will arise for the Banabans who are now Fijian citizens, as they will be faced with a very difficult choice of citizenship if they wish to return to Ocean Island. I am sorry to say this, but, as it stands, the Bill seems to contain a formula for possible future friction, not only within the newly-independent State, but also between the Gilbert Islands and Fiji. One understands the Government's case when they talk about the integrity of existing boundaries and not allowing secession without the agreement of the majority of the people becoming independent, but has not this case been very seriously weakened by what has already happened to the Ellice Islanders, who have become a sovereign independent group with United Nations approval?
One must cast one's mind back to 1947, the time of the statement of intention, which was precisely the moment when Pakistan was being allowed to leave the Indian Union. It has already been mentioned this evening that there is a great distance between Ocean Island and Rabi Island, but perhaps not too much weight should be attached to that. It is important for both islands to be under one sovereignty and for the Rabi community to have a very positive say and influence in the resettlement and restoration of Ocean Island.
How can that be achieved? I submit that there is a case for autonomy for Ocean Island, provided that it comes in association with Fiji. This is where I must part company with the noble Lord, Lord McNair. It is important to remember that Fiji has accepted association with Ocean Island in principle ever since February 1977. It is perhaps also worth stressing that such an arrangement would not harm Gilbertese interests, as mining royalties in respect of Ocean Island, as we know, cease later this year or at the best early in 1980. It can be no secret that in the past Her Majesty's Government have considered a solution along the lines
1624
I am mentioning, and Her Majesty's Government used to say that they had an open mind. I believe that Parliament should insist on our Government thinking again, and thinking again in the light of the letters from the Prime Minister of Fiji and from the Chairman of the Rabi Council of Leaders, both addressed to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, and both received within the last few days. Like other speakers, I welcome the proposed visit to the Islands in March of this year by the noble Lord's colleague, but I hope that the discussions that will tale place then need not be limited to the text, as it stands, of the White Paper and of the Bill.
7.41 p.m.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, like other noble Lords I very much welcome the Bill. So far as the Ellice Islands are concerned, we are all very glad that they should have independence, and we welcome them within the Commonwealth. But I should like to say a word about Banaba in addition to those which have already been said. I have never had the good fortune to visit Banaba, but I have read carefully all the evidence both for and against which I have received, and the situation seems to me to be this: the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, mentioned the fact that the safeguards for them are included in the Bill, but the discussions on the Constitution, although attended by 13 representatives of Banaba, seem to produce no consideration of their particular problems.
The 1947 agreement, as your Lordships heard, which gave Banaba Rabi Island as a second home, and which gave them full rights of ownership and residence in both islands is, as the noble Lord has told us, preserved in the Bill. But of course there is one special problem here, and that is the fact that the Fijians do not recognise dual citizenship. A great number, in fact I should say by far the majority of Banabans, are Fijian citizens. If they want to come back to Banaba—and many of them do—they will of course have to face the problem of either retaining their Fijian citizenship, and so remaining for political purposes foreigners in their own country, or they will have to reject their Fijian citizenship and take on that of the Gilbert Islands, which is the last thing on earth that they want to do.

1625
We talk a great deal about our democratic system as we know it here. It has many faults. Indeed, I have myself commented on them once or twice. But it has one great advantage, and that is that it gives the people the right to choose the Government they want. They may afterwards come to regret it very much, but none the less they have had the choice. Now this Bill is imposing on the Banabans a Government that not one single one of them wants. They want independence: independence and self-government in association with Fiji.
They claim that they are a different race from the Gilbertese. As to the truth of that, of course I cannot vouch, but one must remember that nationality is not merely a biological question. For instance, I suppose from a biological point of view we come from the same stem as the Germans, but I do not think that there are any of us who would wish to feel that there was no difference in nationality between the two. Of course, geographically again Banaba is one of the group of Gilbert Islands. But geographic position also means nothing. Geographically, for instance, Wales and England are one, but I hardly think that the noble Lord would agree that Wales and England are one country. Also, nationality is what you feel like. It is where you feel your own loyalty rests. In the light of everything that we have heard, and in the light of the fact there has been such a great campaign on their part to preserve their own independence and their own individuality, I hope that the Government will give this problem of Banaba a second thought. The last thing on earth that we want to do is to add another mistake to the already formidable list of those made by the noble Lord's right honourable friend.
7.46 p.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I hope that I shall not spoil a debate which, up to now, in my humble view has been a very successful one indeed. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord McNair, will not think me patronising if I venture to say that I thought his own contribution was of quite exceptional value and extremely well done, and a model of a speech that should be made in a situation like this. The noble Lord made some reference to a paragraph in a newspaper this morning, or a few
1626
words on television last night. There does seem to have been an unpleasant incident on Banaba, to say the least. I have heard from the organisation of which the noble Lord, Lord McNair, slightly disapproved. Frankly, I should have thought that it is almost a model of a pressure group. A "pressure group" is a recognised parliamentary term. Very often you have to rush around at a moment's notice to try to get friends and allies. This group has sent out a lot of paper, but no one can really criticise for being supplied with all the relevant information.
I come back to the telex message. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts has the fullest information. However, he did not refer to it, and I can well understand why he did not. I do not profess to do more than give just a brief sentence to the House, because anything further would point the finger at one Party or another. It seems from the telex that there were groups of Banabans involved. It said that they moved on to six target areas, and within an hour or two flames lit up the sky. A person connected with the Phosphate Commission said that he had never seen anything like it before, and was palpably upset. Two Banabans were hurt, and I am told that eight Banabans were jailed—presumably detained awaiting further trial; I do not know. Among them, unfortunately, were the deputy chairman of the Banaban Council of Leaders, the Reverend Kaitangare Kaburoro, and Council Member Mr. Tekaie Tabuariki, and the Council's assistant secretary.
Everyone will say, of course quite rightly, that this is not the best way of helping their cause. They have tried pretty hard. I would say that never before in the history of our jurisprudence has a small and lonely island people been able to occupy our courts with a case which was of such an historic nature; and for once I must tell my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for whom I have profound and deep personal respect, that I thought he was less than full today in some of the observations he made.
As I understand the history of what is now called the Ocean Island, it was the home of the Banabans for many centuries. This is not a case of a discovery in 1900

1627
or even 1800, because there are historic records going back to the 15th century. It was occupied by them long before there were any records of the occupation of any of the Gilbert atoll. It was their home. Experts will, of course, argue about the anthropological history. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, in her excellent speech said they shared the same god as the Gilberts; but I will not wander into the difficulties of theology with religious wars being fought in half the countries of the world, and frequently between people who worship the same god, ostentatiously very often.
The Banabans were being advised by a lawyer of very great distinction, a man well known in this House and now disqualified for participating in litigation, a man whose name seems to me to bear some connection with the book to which Lord McNair referred, and I would expect it to be. They brought a case which they virtually knew they were bound to lose, substantially on technicalities.
The history of his case goes back to somebody asking someone to make a mark on a bit of paper for a 99 year lease on the island. The history of this case has some pages so ugly that one wants to suppress them because they do little good to our national reputation. The Vice-Chancellor, while saying he was a court of law and not of equity, went out of his way to make observations showing clearly what his view might have been had it been a court of equity—I think he used those words—and told, in a judgment lasting five and a half days, a story of trickery and deception which made it incumbent on a nation like ours to step in and say, "We will double, treble, quadruple the amount of compensation previously offered".
My problem about this—it is, of course, my own problem—is that I am getting a very old man, my mind is not as good as it was and my memory is not so clear. Nevertheless, I do not understand to this moment certain matters which surely are of supreme importance if we are to approach negotiations. First, to whom does this compensation go, and who administers it? Secondly, what would happen if the Banabans were able to reoccupy Ocean Island? We are told that their present island was bought in
1628
the open market, I think during the last war, out of funds which were being administered by one of our officials for the benefit of the Banabans and which presumably belonged to them. So what happens to the territory of the island if they leave it? Thirdly, if they could be persuaded on any terms, and if it were respectable for them, to reoccupy Ocean Island, would it not be their locus pœnitentiœ until they found out whether it was admirable and capable now, after all the destruction, of providing subsistence?
One of the reasons for the demonstrations is undoubtedly the deep-seated belief that there has been unfairness all along, that they have been kept out of their homeland and that it was intended to keep them out of their homeland while the phosphate operations were going on. Lord Goronwy-Roberts talked about a 30-year story. That is so, but it is a 30-year story which happens to end at the precise moment when they are no longer of any value to anyone else at all, when the phosphates have all been gathered together and when no one would say the place has any future industrial value or prospects, and where the only prospects for subsistence seem to be to live on fishing and possibly some ground. Lord McNair said he thought that could be done with outside aid. With all the skill of the Australians, for example—and they could afford to be generous—it might be put right, it is said.
But what happens in the meantime? Lord Goronwy-Roberts has made another offer, but an offer of a further conference is almost a snare and delusion, and it is with care that I use those words to my noble friend, whose integrity is beyond doubt. Unless there is a road which shows some hope of leading somewhere, another conference is not much use. While demonstrations of anger and intransigence are still being brought to some form of justice, and while tempers seem to be more roused than before, it is not a very good climate.
I recall the case of St. Kitts Nevis. At the time there was a good deal of criticism about St. Kitts. Of the islands concerned one was under heavy criticism and receiving heavy defence. There was the position in which a Minister went to Anguilla from London to attend a formal reception, with greetings prepared in his

1629
honour, and he was chased off the island to the security of a British ship. That is not an incident that we want to see or to encourage. We want to assure the Banabans that everything is being done, and that it is our passionate desire that they should be treated fairly. I think that the committee could go a long way, having won their confidence, in giving them those assurances. Before the next conference there ought to be some real hope that a result will be produced. Another failure would be a sad end.
Finally, I have heard no mention of Nauru in this connection. The Banabans sent their telex message from Nauru over this weekend. Nauru, I know, is a full member of the Commonwealth. It is in a position perhaps to render some help. The noble Baroness said that the Prime Minister of Fiji had shown goodwill, statesmanship, and understanding, and might still render great service. He himself has said that he is now placed in a position where he can no longer arbitrate betwen the two sides because his own position puts him on the one side. I would not have thought, in the circumstances, that that was an overwhelming objection, and I am certain that he might render a further contribution towards solving a situation which has become one of great difficulty.
8.4 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words in the debate. I say this particularly because I have before me a copy of a document dated 15th March 1947 stating,
"The Banabans' gift to Plymouth—food valued at £500. All races joined in".
The food gifts were given to Plymouth and to Portsmouth, and they were sent to be allocated fairly to the two cities through centres of the Ministry of Food. We were intensely grateful, to them particularly at that time, Plymouth having been so severely bombed, and I should like now to put on record our sincere thanks. I should also like to remind the House that they gave £1,000 to the National Relief Fund. That was in the first world war, and early in the last war they gave £12,500 for anti-aircraft guns. There could not be more loyal gestures than those.
1630
I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for the way in which he introduced the Bill and for the interesting details he gave us. I have studied over the weekend and previously the excellent document produced by Sir Bernard Braine and his committee, as well as a summary sent to me by the chief officer of Fiji. I should like to ask the Minister one or two questions. He may not be able to answer them now, and I do not want to repeat what other speakers have said, but I shall just put these points to him, and if he cannot reply now perhaps he will write to me.
I should like to know whether appeals will continue to lie from the High Court to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in future, particularly in respect of any question of infringement of the specific provisions in the Constitution relating to the Banabans. It would be very helpful if we could know this, and it would also be helpful to the Banabans themselves.
I also wish to raise a point in regard to a statement made in June 1975, when the then Chief Minister of the Gilbert Islands made some generous offers. I should like to know whether these are still in force, and, in particular, what it means to be a "belonger". Part of the offer reads:
"to provide for all Banabans who so wish to be granted 'belonger' status in the Gilbert Islands".
It went on to say:
"to provide for a seat in the House of Assembly for a representative of Banaba and to provide that all Banabans granted 'belonger' status and subsequently citizenship may on certain conditions"—
perhaps the noble Lord will let me know what the "certain conditions" are—
"participate in the election of the representative of Banaba".
It would be very helpful if I could know about that. It was also proposed:
"to provide for a Banaba Island Council to be elected by the Banabans and to provide that Council with the same rights and privileges as any other island council".
What are these rights and privileges? What can they do? Is the situation similar to that of a local government authority in this country? It would be a great safeguard if one knew what could be done by this council.

1631
The offers also included:
"to ensure that any benefits arising from greater indigenous involvement in the operations of the phosphate industry are shared between the Government and the Banaban landowners in the present proportions".
This, I presume, will be ceasing quite shortly, and I should like to know what is to happen regarding the land at present belonging to landowners. It was also proposed:
"to guarantee that the Banaban landowners' income from phosphate is free of tax within the Gilbert Islands".
That would be very favourably received.
Here, I should like to follow what the noble Lord, Lord Hale, said, because I am rather disturbed about what has happened over the last two or three days. This has not been mentioned by the Minister at all. I understand that 30 special constables had to be called in to reinforce the island's 10-man police force, and as many as 300 additional men were hurriedly recruited after the Banaban sabotage attempts. It is very fortunate that a Minister will be going out, and I should like to know tonight whether it is possible for him to go out sooner than was planned. Alternatively, perhaps the noble Lord will send a message to the Government, if he has not already done so, stating that someone is coming. I see from the report I have had that the people are becoming very angry. Councillors and about 200 Banabans living on the island marched to the BPC offices on Wednesday, carrying placards bearing the slogans: "British Justice Stinks", "Hands Off Banaba", and "Return Stolen Property". I am sure the noble Lord will agree that this was very unfortunate, but I hope that something will be done quickly so that the people will know that the question of their rights is to be looked into again, and perhaps a more detailed explanation can be given so that they really understand what the Government intend to do. I understand that Mr. Caine, a member of the Fiji Parliament, and councillors burnt a copy of the White Paper setting out the terms of independence for the Gilberts. This, too, I think, is unfortunate; I hope they read it in detail. But, still more, I gather that they are now in detention as political prisoners. This was stated by Mr. Caine. So, perhaps, when he winds
1632
up, the noble Lord might like to say a few things about the points I have raised. It would be very helpful to me and, I think, to others as well.
8.10 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, on the very painstaking way in which he has spoken about this Bill. I completely agree that, of course, from the point of view of tidiness it makes sense that Ocean Island should be incorporated in the new Constitution to be given to the Gilbertese. As I say, it is far tidier. Ocean Island will be near the administrative centre; and if there is a drought—and as we have heard you get great vagaries of climate—it will be far easier to cope with that if she is in the Gilbertese Constitution. But I also agree that the entrenched clauses, the safeguards that she is being offered in the Constitution, could hardly be fairer. In fact, I doubt whether there are many Constitutions in which the minority has been so very well looked after in theory. But as we have heard today, if we look round the many countries, even subcontinents, for whom we have drawn up independence Constitutions, I can think of hardly any that have remained in the form in which we drew them up, and quite a few have been completely abandoned.
I want to speak for two or three minutes about the moral side of this Bill. I do not understand because, apart from the entrenched clauses and the safeguards, we have also heard that the financial arrangements for the Banabans are generous. I understand that over five years they are going to get £15,500,000 and they are going to get 10 million Australian dollars to commence with. It seems generous, and they deserve it, but taking these very fair safeguards in the Constitution and the financial help that has been promised, why is it that the Banabans do not appear to be at all happy with joining the Gilbertese in the Kiribati Constitution? It does not matter how tidy you make a Constitution, if a minority is forced—perhaps "forced" is too strong a word, but are advised to join it against their will, that will not be a happy state of affairs.
Particularly in the Pacific we need to create stability wherever it is within our

1633
power. We must look with every consideration at the great attachment—the love, if you like to call it that—they have for their homeland. It may seem rather odd for an island which appears to have been to all intents and purposes, from what we have heard today, ruined; nevertheless, it appears to be there, this great love for their homeland. We must take great care of that and ensure that, no matter how small the minority is—I think the smaller the minority the more important it is in many ways—we have regard to their emotions. This is the only point that really worries me.
Talking of islands—although one cannot compare the two, of course—I remember St. Kilda. In 1930 (or was it 1928) the St. Kildans were removed by the then British Government from their homeland. The British Government had some very good reasons for doing that because, for every form of economic reason, and to assist the standard of living, it was the correct thing to do. A lot of these St. Kildans were settled opposite my home in Scotland and they were not happy. They always wanted to go back to St. Kilda. There is an example of something that appears to be tidy, but in humane terms it failed. I am all for tidiness. The Civil Service like tidiness. I quite agree it is essential, but I cannot say that it has been all that successful in the new form of local government in the regions, but that is beside the point. However, we must take regard of these emotions and this attachment, this great love of the Banabans for Ocean Island.
What I should like to see is something that has been mentioned today, I think, although I cannot remember which noble Lord mentioned it. Could not the Government along with the Gilbertese guarantee the 1947 safeguards in the Constitution? Could they not guarantee the entrenched clauses, the safeguards, so that if by any chance the Gilbertese—I am told they are very charming people, but a lot of odd things happen in the world—let the Banabans down, that guarantee would exist? I feel that if the British Government were able to do that, perhaps the Banabans might be happier. I do not think they will be completely happy, but personally I cannot understand it. When we take an island such as the Caymans (I knew all those islands well) it is a tiny island which was allowed its independence;
1634
it used to be tied to Jamaica, of course, and it was allowed its independence. It appears to be getting on all right. I agree that there are other reasons, since it is a tax-haven for, I understand, quite a lot of people—not me! I agree it is in a different position from Ocean Island, but it shows that these very small islands can be independent.
Of course, I think they must be in a loose association with the United Kingdom—or I suppose that Ocean Island would have to be in association with the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand. But I hope that the Government will not be too hasty in bringing this Constitution into being and in forcing (or, as I said, advising) the Banabans to join with the Gilbertese, and if it appeared to be against their will I hope they will again attempt to explain to them the great benefits they will get. Apparently they walked out of the last conference here, which I think was rather foolish of them. My Lords, I will end by saying that the date which is given for independence is July. Could we not delay it somewhat to be sure whether the Banabans will be happier to join in Kiribati: and if they are completely adamant against so doing, we ought to think again.
8.20 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the tone and content of this debate. I think that every participant has agreed that this is an extremely difficult problem to resolve. On the one hand, you have the very deep feelings of the Banaban community about Ocean Island, and, on the other hand, you have the equally deep convictions among the Gilbertese elements of this territory. When my noble friend Lord Hale says that it is perhaps inutilitous to attempt to have further discussions between them unless a result is obtained, I wonder whether he means "unless a result that one or the other insists upon having is obtained".
Lord HALE: My Lords, if my noble friend will forgive me, I did not say that. I said: unless there is some light or opening to be seen ahead.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, knowing him as I do, I was proceeding to make exactly that interpretation

1635
of what my noble friend said. Yes, certainly. Another attempt to get them together, with the full blessing, I might add, of the Fiji Prime Minister, Ratu Mara, is worth undertaking—and I have given the undertaking this evening that that will be done—so that an agreement, an arrangement, an acceptance of a strengthened agreement can possibly be extracted from such a discussion. What I am saying is that, having regard for the absolutist attitude of both sides—and I have had to deal with this for something like two years—I do not think that a solution rests in deciding totally in favour of one over the other. The durable solution rests in somehow strengthening the common ground so that the Gilbert Islands, as now constituted, can go forward on the basis of the fullest possible safeguards, guaranteed—and I have listened carefully to the suggestions on this—to the fullest possible and most effective extent. I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Brockway that the history of entrenched clauses in many but not all parts of the world is not a very encouraging one. If we can do that and then, after a period of trying out this accommodation, have a report on the situation, on how it has worked out, and consider any recommendations that are made, I am convinced that this is the way we ought to proceed.
This is a good Bill to meet a very difficult situation. It ought to be given a trial, with a supervision of how provisions in it relating to this particular island and this particular community work out. Then, under impartial supervision and study, a report, with recommendations, should be returned as to how it has worked out. In fact, it is in the report of the conference that that is how it shall be done. I would appeal to my Banaban friends to accept these arrangements, these safeguards, and to work the arrangements for a period of time under the supervision of the sort of body which can be put together to the satisfaction of all concerned. The Commonwealth itself has been mentioned. Fiji has been mentioned. I do not wish to intrude too much into a prescription of how this should be supervised. A body that is acceptable to all—a commission, as I have described it—should examine it as it develops and, at the end of the period, report. This is provided for in the con-
1636
ference report and will be implemented. It is a matter of detail how such a commission is put together.
My Lords, I was asked a number of important questions by the official spokesman for the Opposition, the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. In particular, she referred to the position of the Phoenix and Line groups. That is one of the points she made. We have, of course, amicable and constructive discussions with the United States who have a view and an interest in two of these islands. I am confident that a successful outcome can be reached within the next few months. Our American friends are well aware of our attitude. We regard these islands, all 33 of them, as forming the territory upon which we hope, with the approval of Parliament, to confer independence and sovereignty.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, can the noble Lord assure us that if by chance there is no satisfactory arrangement between the United States and the United Kingdom before 12th July, any rights or claims which may lie with the present Government would pass to Kiribati? Or would the claim go by default?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is our intention that sovereign independence should be conferred upon what used to be known as the Gilbert Islands (namely Kiribati) and that the territory comprises the 33 islands which in turn includes the islands and all the sovereignty and rights that attach thereto. That is the British view. Our American friends understand this. We are discussing with them, on that basis, what the future should hold.
The noble Baroness asked about control of the trust fund set up out of the monies agreed between the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand, namely, the 10 million Australian dollars. We have no wish to prescribe how this fund should be set up or to exercise control as to how it is spent. Discussions with the Banaban legal advisers were in train before the end of last year, when they were instructed to discontinue them. The offer has been made, together with an offer to discuss how best to set up a fund—which will include answers to the questions put to me by my noble friend Lord Hale

1637
as to who receives this—and we stand ready not only to hand over the money but to assist in constructing the best possible, most acceptable machinery for the disposal of this money. I hope that they will come back soon and discuss with us as good friends how this should be done. The money is there. We have been able to add to it the accumulated interest since the offer was made which amounts to another 1½million dollars. So that in every possible way, having regard to the fact, as I have said, in another age with other standards and other capacities of vision, mistakes may have been made—and not all the actions in this area were entirely mistakes by the way—we have been working as hard as possible in a practical way, financial and otherwise, to compensate for those mistakes in an ex-gratia sense.
The noble Baroness asked a question about dual nationality. Yes, my Lords, it is our understanding that Fiji law does not admit of dual citizenship; but it is for the Fiji Government to interpret their own law. I say this because although that is statutory fact in Fiji, in practice the Fiji Government have exercised more than marginal administrative tolerance which, while not exactly extending dual citizenship, certainly has created facilities for the Banabans on Rabi Island to travel, for instance, on Fiji passports. There may be there a possibility that the Fiji Government—itself a sovereign independent Government—may of their own accord look at the position and perhaps indicate that they will continue to interpret their law in such a way as to continue what I call the tolerant facilities that they have been able to extend to the Banabans. We are ready to discuss this with the Fiji Government. Indeed, I hope this will be one of the points that my honourable friend will discuss with them.
As to the future of the land, yes, I can give the assurance that the land leased from the Banaban landowners will be returned at the end of phosphate mining, which is some time this year, in accordance with the terms of the leases. Any land held by the Gilbert Islands Government, which was formerly Banaban land, will be returned to the former landowners after mining has ceased, in accordance with the Independence Constitution. This is provided for in paragraph 64 of the conference report.
1638
Regarding the figures she gave about the population of Rabi and the fact that it is not entirely Banaban—however we define that—it would take some little research, as she herself conceded, to answer and to confirm the exact figures. But I can tell the noble Baroness that her figures are broadly right. The Kiribati community is a community where there has been a good deal of to-ing and fro-ing and a romantic initiative from time to time, so that part of the charm of all these communities which form the larger community arises from the inventiveness of human relationships as indeed of some of the arts.
How many Banabans acquired Fiji nationality? The precise numbers are not known. All those born in Fiji acquired Fiji citizenship; but since Fiji does not now permit dual nationality, dual citizens lose their Fiji citizenship on their 22nd birthday unless they have renounced their non-Fiji citizenship by that date. If I have omitted any of the points—and, if I may say so without presumption, they are always appropriate ones that the noble Baroness makes from the Opposition Front Bench—then I shall communicate with her in another way.
If I may now refer to the incidents of the past few days, I do not think that we should make too much of them. These are people to whom violence and destruction is totally foreign, it is not the Pacific way. Frankly, I wonder where this particular activity came from. I very much hesitate to believe that it is of Banaban or indeed Pacific instigation. They are not that type of people. The facts, so far as I have been able to gather them today, are that a Banaban party of about 15 persons, led by the deputy chairman of the Rabi Council, including one Press representative, arrived in Banaba last week, on the 13th, and they requested the BPC to cease mining on the island, otherwise they threatened to obstruct mining operations. After some argument, 36 hours later they threw some petrol bombs damaging some equipment, excavators, a crusher motor and a conveyor system. This again is very foreign to this community and to the individuals that one knows. I find it very hard to believe, and it is certainly not natural to them.
Some of the protestors were taken into custody. Their leader, the deputy chairman of the Council, subsequently asked

1639
the remainder of the group to desist from further active protest, and they did so. The island has now returned to normal; the damaged equipment is being repaired and the Banaban party have had discussions with two Gilbertese Ministers visiting the island. Of course we all deplore this use of violence, by the Banabans or anybody else. It is wrong in itself, and also, as I have said, totally out of keeping with the Pacific tradition. On the question of damage to machinery, it is of course the intention of the Commission not only to hand over the land according to the proper way, but also to make over to Banabans on the island itself and to the Gilbertese Government most, if not all, of this equipment. Some of it is very valuable indeed and could be of the utmost help in the kind of restoration that more than one noble Lord has urged should be undertaken on the island. It is really a counterproductive form of protest to destroy some of the machinery which may well in the next few years be the means of restoring this island.
My noble friend Lord Brockway made a speech which I very much appreciate. He is of course intensely anxious that any minority should be properly treated. There are minorities everywhere, and perhaps particularly in the Pacific. We have minorities in this country; the noble Lord, Lord Somers, referred to the minority to which I belong. Well, there is a minority within that minority, and one or two islands are concerned. Are we, in the third quarter of this century, perhaps losing sight of the need not only to safeguard minority interests but also to pay due regard to stability and consolidation?
I have to listen to everybody and there is a widespread feeling, particularly in the Pacific, that constant fragmentation holds for that area real dangers and hazards for the future. I simply indicate what must have occurred to many noble Lords apart from me, that we can go too far in slicing down sovereignty, so that the friends of democracy find that they have been atomised politically with a danger that that might lead to their being treated in the same way more literally. I pay my respects to my noble friend: of course I always listen to every word that he says.
1640
I have sat at his feet and learned a great deal from him about what I like to call humane politics.
The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, in a very helpful speech, put a number of questions to me. Even more helpfully, she said that she would be content with having the answers at a later date, and I propose to adopt that course. I regard that as a very helpful speech indeed to any Minister. But I can answer one or two questions at once. Will Banaban income from phosphates be free of tax as they move with their neighbours into an independent Kiribas? Yes. Not everybody knows that their income from phosphates revenues is tax-free and will continue to be so. Some islands are fortunate. That is referred to in paragraph 67 of the conference report. The noble Baroness raised the question of the Chief Minister's generous offer in relation to "belonger" status. Does this still stand? Is it a reference to the 15 points? The constitution provides for Kiribas citizenship for Banabans wherever they live: that goes somewhat further than "belongership", I think. I shall be writing to the noble Baroness on the other points she raised and, if she feels they can be brought out a little more clearly by means of a Written Answer, I shall be happy to co-operate in every way.
I was particularly appreciative of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McNair. He made a number of suggestions. He said, "Let us pass this Bill", and he is absolutely right. It will be a signal to the Pacific that we are passing an excellent Bill, a very generous one in terms of financial aid to the new Government and specifically to the Banaban community, although of course that is not part of the Bill. From the basis of the Second Reading of this Bill we can go on to its further stages. It will take a couple of months, and very early in that period my honourable friend will, I hope, have visited Tarawa and Suva and will have talked to all concerned. In fact, I shall be very much surprised if he is not armed, among other documents, with the Official Report of this debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for instance, brought out a number of extremely important points and I am sure that I and my honourable friend will be

1641
studying what he said, as indeed we shall be studying what has been said generally in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord McNair, suggested that the 10 million Australian dollars might well be, as it were, put on one side and allowed to fructify—which was the Churchillian way of describing accumulated interest in, I believe, one of his Budgets. Certainly we would welcome resumption of discussions with the Banaban leaders and their advisers to organise this fund, if they wish it, on that basis. I think the noble Lord made an extremely useful suggestion. It is not for me to decide: it is for my Government to discuss with them how to do it, and I do hope that the Banban leaders will pay careful attention to what the noble Lord said on this point.
As to rehabilitation—yes, indeed. As I said in my opening speech, one of the number of—I will not say concessions but points of assistance—to the Banaban community that I am personally very keen on is that we in this country should fund a thorough-going survey of Ocean Island to see how productively restoration for industrial and agricultural purposes could be undertaken. I cannot guarantee what such a survey would report, but certainly I can guarantee that we are ready to undertake it and to pay for it, and to do the job thoroughly. As I said earlier, I should be very surprised if any Government in Britain would look upon this survey as something to be shot down. They would welcome the survey and look in it for possibilities for the advance of redevelopment and restoration of this island, which would meet the point which was properly made by a number of noble Lords. This community does have a feeling for this island.
My Lords, I think I have said enough this evening to show that we have safeguarded the Banabans' land ownership and their access to their island. If anything more can be done, most certainly we are prepared to talk with them and with the Gilbertese and also with the Fijian Prime Minister, whose counsel in these matters we greatly value. We shall do that as well; and, on the basis of the best possible accommodation between two pretty irreconcilable views of where Ocean Island should be, move forward in the next few years with Britain continuing to accord generous aid and technical assistance, together with exceptional bud-
1642
getary assistance, to the new Kiribas Government. On that basis, we will move forward to implement the new arrangement, under supervision to be chosen by them. I hope that my honourable friend will be able to get them to agree on this and that at the end of that period we shall be able to look at this and ask: "How has this worked?" and on the basis of conclusions reached after the end of what I should call a trial period, decide what changes, if any, should be made.
I am grateful to the House: I think the House is entirely right, if I may say so, to give this excellent Bill a Second Reading. Then, during the succeeding stages—which cannot and must not be held up—we can examine whatever suggestions and possibilities my honourable friend is able to bring back with him from his visit to the area.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, why cannot the Government guarantee the entrenched clauses for a certain period: say, 10, 20 or 30 years? Why can they not guarantee that?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I have listened to what has been said about the further strengthening of what are known as "guarantees". I cannot from this Box immediately say that I accept any one of the suggestions. As I said, I think it is right for my honourable friend to arm himself with a copy of the Official Report and that part of it which has been subscribed by the noble Viscount will have a special fascination for him, so that when he goes out to the area he can say: "This was said; this suggestion was made about this procedural commission". There was the suggestion that perhaps the Commonwealth might be brought in, with the Commonwealth Secretariat. The noble Viscount mentioned the possibility of Britain coming in, as did others. Let us leave it at that. Let him bring up these various points. This is really an attempt to gild the lily. The safeguards and guarantees are there, but if there are genuinely-held reservations then a Ministerial visit will be made to the area and all these possibilities for further strengthening will be gone into with the parties.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

NURSES, MIDWIVES AND HEALTH VISITORS BILL
8.49 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of HEALTH and SOCIAL SECURITY (Lord Wells-Pestell): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is a modest one. It is concerned with the reorganisation of a number of bodies—six statutory and three non-statutory—currently responsible for the training and the governance of the nursing professions into a new unified structure which can look at training needs across the board, assess priorities and consider not only the training for entry into nursing, midwifery and health visiting, but also further training in all three fields. In short, it establishes a new framework for formulating the policy on education and training for these professions for the future. The Bill itself does not say what that future education and training should be, nor indeed whether any change from the present arrangements is necessary. It is limited to the creation of the framework within which those decisions will be made; and, as I have said, it is a very modest measure.
I think that it is important to emphasise this last point about changes in training, because I believe that many of the anxieties and reservations felt by certain groups within the professions, notably midwives and health visitors, spring not from what is actually in the Bill, but from what they fear it may contain, or perhaps, to be more accurate, what it may lead to. I shall want to speak more fully about their worries later, but I cannot stress enough that the Bill is concerned with organisation and structure, and not with the content of training.
Some of the misunderstanding comes from the fact that the provisions of the Bill derive from recommendations of the report of the Committee on Nursing, published in 1972, which was under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, a report which was much preoccupied with changes in the pattern of education and training for the nursing professions. It may therefore be convenient to look briefly at some of the key proposals of that report, and at the way in which they have influenced the
1644
provisions of the Bill before us today. I am sure that I speak not only for myself but for all of your Lordships in saying that we are delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, here tonight. We look forward with pleasant anticipation to the maiden speech which he is due to make later.
The Briggs Committee on Nursing was set up in March 1970 by the late Richard Crossman with a broad remit:
"To review the role of the nurse and the midwife in the hospital and the community and the education and training required for that role, so that the best use is made of available manpower to meet present needs and those of an integrated health service".
I am sure that the last phrase is the crucial one. There have been many reports before on aspects of nursing and nurse training, but never before had there been an attempt to look at the role of the nursing professions in the context of an integrated Health Service; that is, within a Health Service that comprised not only the hospital sector, but also the community and the important preventive aspects of health care. An integration is in many senses the keynote of the report which was published in October 1972; integration not only between hospital and community care, but integration between the various kinds and levels of nurse.
The report recommended an entirely new approach to nurse training. In future, it suggested, there should be a common point of entry into training for all nurses and midwives. For the first 18 months, there would be one basic course for all entrants, comprising a number of separate modules of training in different fields, which should include some experience in psychiatric nursing and work in the community. The course would lead to a common "certificate of nursing practice" which would then become the basic, first-level, qualification. At that stage, the individual could choose whether to start work or whether to continue in training to a more advanced level. Or perhaps an individual nurse would choose to work for a number of years and then, later in her career, choose to pursue her professional training further. After the first common course, there would be a further 18-month course, leading to a level comparable to the present registration level in nursing. During this period, the individual would specialise in a particular

1645
area of nursing care—for example, mental illness nursing—and this would become her "preferred field" for work on completion of training. For the more highly specialised fields of care—for example, theatre nursing—there would be specialist courses leading to what were to be known as "higher certificates", which could be taken either concurrently with the second 18-month period of training or as separate six-month courses thereafter.
The idea was to create a continuum of education, where the individuals could progress at their own pace and pursue their own particular interests. Because everyone would have undergone the same common core of training, if later in their career they wished to change direction and enter into a very different sphere of specialisation, they would have received the necessary basic grounding and all that would be needed would be to build on that existing core of knowledge. Thus, the nurse whose preferred field was in general medicine could change relatively easily to work in the mental illness field, because her basic training had included a grounding in psychiatric nursing. This would seem a more flexible structure and one which would allow the individual nurse to adapt to the changing needs of the service, and also to develop her own interests rather more easily than the present arrangements allow.
I have gone into some detail about the plan of education and training which was recommended, because I feel that it is important to see what is in the Bill against that background. It was in the context of this integrated approach to training—and, as I have said, integrated not only in terms of areas to be covered but also in terms of the continuum of education and training—that the Committee considered the arrangements for control of training; that is, the setting and maintaining of standards. And here they found the present arrangements the very opposite of integrated. Although one can have nothing but praise for the work which the present six statutory and three non-statutory training bodies do, it cannot be denied that by compartmentalising training into separate areas there is a fragmentation of the whole approach to the general issues which underlie training in a specific field. As the report itself put it:
1646
"At present there is a wide range of bodies concerned with nursing and midwifery education and directly or indirectly, therefore, with the future of the professions. … We have been impressed by the quality of the evidence each one of them has presented to us and with the care and sense of public responsibility with which the evidence was compiled, in some cases after a comprehensive review. It is in no sense because we fail to recognise the achievements of these bodies that we recommend that in the interests of the profession there should be one single central statutory organisation to supervise training and education and to safeguard and, when possible, to raise professional standards".
The report went on to recommend the creation of a central council, responsible for the formulation of the broad lines of education policy and for the registration and discipline of the professions, and of four national boards, one for each country of the United Kingdom, to be responsible for the administration of training within that country.
The concept of an integrated statutory framework flows logically from the concept of integrated training. However, when one comes to making changes, it is necessary to have the structural changes first. That is what this Bill is all about. It makes those structural changes and establishes the central council and the national boards which the Briggs Report recommended. It does not tackle the question of the detailed changes in training recommended by the report; these are for the new bodies, once they are established. And this, I think, would seem to be perfectly right. It is now some years since the Briggs recommendations were formulated and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, would be the first to admit that things have changed since then. We have a reorganised and integrated Health Service. We are members of the European Economic Community, and the whole climate within the nursing professions has changed radically.
I am sure the new bodies, when they get down to looking at education and training needs and the question of changes, will consider very carefully what was said in the Briggs Report; it was, and is, a very impressive document. But I think they will wish to look again at some of the detailed proposals and to look at their feasibility in a somewhat changed Health Service. However, the point is that the Bill of itself does not mean that there will be changes in training, and it certainly does not mean that the pattern of training

1647
proposed by the Briggs Report will be introduced overnight.
I should like now to turn to what is contained in the Bill. Its main purpose is to establish a United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting, and four national boards. The central council is to prepare and maintain a central register of qualified nurses, midwives and health visitors; and to determine by means of rules, education and training requirements and other conditions for admission to the register. The new bodies will, as I have explained, replace all the existing statutory bodies; namely, the General Nursing Council for England and Wales, the General Nursing Council for Scotland and the Northern Ireland Council for Nursing and Midwifery, the Central Midwives Board for England and Wales, the Central Midwives Board for Scotland and the Council for the Education and Training of Health Visitors. They will also take over the functions of the three non-statutory bodies; namely, the Joint Board for Clinical Nursing Studies, the Committee for Clinical Nursing Studies (its Scottish equivalent) and the Panel of Assessors for District Nurse Training. All those concerned with education and training for nurses, mid-wives and health visitors will be brought together so that the full range of education and training issues can be looked at together and the concept of education as a continuum throughout the individual's career can be fostered.
There is also another important aspect to the Bill; it is fundamentally concerned with the governance of the professions, through the requirement that nurses, midwives and health visitors shall be registered for practice in their profession, and by the enforcement of standards of professional conduct through the disciplinary process. These provisions, vital as part of the protection of the public, ensure that those who care for us are in all respects well qualified to do so.
I now turn to the detailed provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 establishes a new United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. Its detailed membership will be prescribed by Ministers, but the crucial feature is the high degree of cross-membership with the four national boards, each of which will
1648
nominate, in equal numbers, members to the council. Those nominated by national boards will form the majority on the council, and that majority will comprise nurses, midwives and health visitors. Though it is right that the professions themselves have the major say in governing their own affairs and in setting standards of education and training, others have an important contribution to make. For example, there is a close relationship, as we all know, between the nursing professions and medicine. Also, those skilled in the field of education have an important part to play in formulating the way in which the professions' kind and standard of training are determined. There will therefore be members representing both fields on the council.
Clause 2 deals with the council's functions. As a new governing body for the professions, responsible for registration and discipline as well as setting standards of education and training, it will have the power to formulate rules on these subjects. Clause 3 deals with specialist standing committees of the Council. These will be established by order. In particular, there is a requirement to constitute a Midwifery Committee and a Finance Committee. There is power to establish other specialist committees, including committees for district and mental nursing, for clinical nursing studies—which may cover the whole range of post-basic specialties such as intensive care, renal nursing, theatre nursing—and occupational health nursing. And in time there may well be others.
Clause 4 deals with the council's Midwifery Committee in some detail. The majority of members of the committee are required to be practising midwives, and the council is to consult the committee on all matters relating to midwifery and may assign functions to that committee which, if the council so authorises, the committee can deal with finally without further reference to the council. In recognition of the special position of midwives, the only group whose practice is controlled by rules, there is a special provision requiring the council to assign to the committee all matters relating to the preparation and the making of rules on practice. Because this is very much an area for experts, rules on practice may not be approved unless they are framed in accordance with the recommendations of

1649
the committee. This is a very important recognition of the need for expert advice in this area, which is so vital to the protection of the vulnerable mother and child.
Clause 5 establishes the national boards, one each for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. As with the central council, detailed membership is to be prescribed by order. The majority will be members of the professions and, after the initial term, will be directly elected by the professions themselves. This will enable the professions to have a greater say in the control of their own affairs. Though there are elections at present to the General Nursing Councils, this will be the first time that midwives and health visitors have been able to have a direct involvement in the governance of their own professions.
Clause 6 deals with the functions of the national boards. Each board is charged with providing, or arranging for others to provide, courses of training for those seeking registration and courses of further training for those already registered. The boards are required to ensure that the content and standard of the courses meets the requirements of the Central Council. Indeed, the national boards are specifically charged with collaborating with the council in promoting improvements in education and training. They will also have a responsibility for investigating cases of alleged misconduct. Clause 7 deals with the standing committees of the national boards. Clause 8 deals with joint standing committees—that is, committees serving both the council and the boards. There is a requirement to establish a health visiting joint committee which the council and boards are to consult on all matters relating to health visiting and which will discharge functions assigned to it. Clause 9 deals with local training committees. This enables Ministers to establish training committees of the national boards which will assist boards in carrying out their training functions.
Clause 10 is in a sense the practical kernel of the Bill. This clause requires the council to prepare and maintain a professional register of qualified nurses, midwives and health visitors. In order to distinguish different qualifications and different kinds and standards of training, the register is to be divided into parts
1650
which Ministers will prescribe by order after consulting the council. Clause 11 deals with admission to the register and Clause 12 deals with the circumstances in which and the means by which a person may be removed from the register. Clause 13 deals with the procedures for appeals for anybody aggrieved by decisions of the council to remove them from the register. Clause 14 provides for offences and penalties for falsely claiming to be qualified as a nurse, midwife or health visitor. Clauses 15–17 restate in relation to the council and boards provisions from existing legislation concerning the practice of midwifery. In particular they require the council to make rules covering midwifery practice and restate the provisions establishing local supervising authorities. The presence of this group of clauses is again a recognition of the separate characteristics of midwifery and the need in order to protect the public to have adequate control over the way in which midwives operate. Clause 18 is also a restatement of existing provisions in the Midwives (Scotland) Act 1951 which exempts midwives from jury service. Similar provisions for midwives in other parts of the United Kingdom already exist in other legislation. Clause 19 deals with the finances of the council and boards, and Clause 20 deals with the accounts of the council and boards. The remaining clauses are all of a technical nature.
The Bill has eight Schedules. Schedules 1 and 2 are concerned with the constitution of council and boards respectively, setting out in some detail their procedures and methods of working. Schedule 3 deals with disciplinary proceedings before council and boards. Schedule 4 deals with the qualifications of auditors. Schedule 5 contains transitional provisions relating to the transfer of staff, property, et cetera, from the existing to the new bodies. Schedule 6 contains the adaptations required for Northern Ireland and its national board. The constitutional position in Northern Ireland is different from that elsewhere in the United Kingdom and it is therefore necessary to adapt United Kingdom legislation to take account of this. Schedule 7 contains Amendments to other Acts. Schedule 8 deals with Acts to be repealed.
My Lords, I do not want to spend much more time this evening on aspects

1651
of the Bill, because we are not unmindful of some of the difficulties that certain people are experiencing. But may I just say this about the problems. There has been a great deal of debate about the position within the Bill of minority groups, especially midwives and health visitors. Obviously, your Lordships will want to deal with this matter when we reach the Committee stage, probably in some detail.
The main concern has been that their separate indentity and distinctive training will be lost because their interests will be given scant regard by bodies dominated by the numerically stronger nurses. For this reason, there has been a desire to build in greater protection and safeguards by giving definite responsibilities to the specialist standing committees for both the midwives and health visitors. Indeed, Clause 4, introduced during Committee in another place, was designed for just this purpose: to indicate clearly and put beyond doubt the remit of the experts on the midwifery Committee in relation to the rules of midwifery practice. We believe this has gone a long way to removing the midwives' fears.
There remains, however, a difficulty over health visitors. The problem in essence is quite simple; it is, if I may say so, a matter of balance. On the one hand, there is a need to reassure health visitors that their committee will have a real say in matters wholly or mainly affecting health visitors, and, on the other, there is the need to preserve the position of the council, and boards, and their ability to take the broad view and make decisions on all aspects of training for the professions. The crux of the problem has been to find a middle way between these two laudable objectives. So far I have to confess no middle position has been found. A number of proposals have been put forward, but all have involved a degree of delegation—in some cases amounting to virtual autonomy—to the health visiting joint committee which would, if carried through, vitiate the whole purpose of the Bill.
We are, however, still trying to find that middle road. My right honourable friend, the Minister of State for Health, has given an undertaking that if the various groups involved come forward
1652
with a better agreed solution the Government will write it into the Bill. A meeting has been arranged with the various groups to be held very soon, to see whether anything has been or indeed can be agreed. If agreement is forthcoming, I would move Amendments either at Committee, or, if necessary, at Report. I think this is a fair undertaking and one which the various groups representing the professions should take very seriously.
We believe that there is a good deal of unanimity about the ends to be attained. The dispute is wholly about the means to attain them. We want nurses, midwives and health visitors to work together in the new structure, and we believe that by doing so they will be promoting the best interests of their professions. Their ability to move forward and introduce changes in training will be severely restricted if there are people within the professions who are unhappy about the way decisions are made. That is why we are anxious to see an agreed solution to which everybody can put their name.
My Lords, I started out by saying that I think this Bill could be described as a modest one; it is, but it is also a worthwhile and useful measure. Over one-third of all National Health Service revenue is spent on nursing. I think that we have a duty to ensure that that money is being wisely spent for the benefit of the patient. Patients will benefit most from a well-trained workforce of nurses, mid-wives and health visitors who are well prepared for their roles. It is my belief that the new bodies to be established by the Bill present a tremendous opportunity for a review of training so that we can do what is best for the Service and, of course, for our nurses, midwives and health visitors. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—(Lord Wells-Pestell)
9.20 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell for introducing the Bill this evening and for explaining it all so clearly and carefully. May I say at the outset how delighted we are on this side of the House that the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, is making his Maiden speech on the Bill. We shall all look forward to

1653
hearing what he has to say. One of the great benefits in the House of Lords is that we make it possible for the chairmen of such important committees to be able to speak to their report and for us to hear at first hand their views upon it.
The Bill was introduced in another place as a non-controversial measure, and so it might well appear from its title. We can all agree on thanking the nursing profession not only for what they do in the ordinary course of their duties, but particularly for all the extra work that they have taken on during these past weeks of industrial unrest in the Hospital Service. What is non-controversial is that we must all look after the nursing profession to which we all owe so much. In saying that, we must also look after the other professions—the midwives and the health visitors—with whom we are concerned in the Bill. There is, I think, a particular reason for that. Not only are we grateful for what they do, but the trend in medicine today is towards community care and that means an ever-greater dependence upon midwives and particularly upon health visitors. We have an ageing population and health visitors play an increasingly important role in the care of the aged. That role and that of midwives is also extremely important in the world of preventive medicine to which we are all increasingly turning.
However, that said, to describe the Bill as a non-controversial measure would, I think, be not quite correct. From the moment of its Second Reading in another place it has, in fact, proved to be controversial, not particularly in a party political sense, but, judging from the number of letters that I have received, it is difficult to see that it is anything but still controversial and that the controversies will not easily be resolved.
If the main principle of the Bill is right—namely, the establishment of a United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visitors—then what I may describe as the "minority professions" are bound to fear that their views will be overruled by those of the majority. If, on the other hand, too much is given to the minority professions, then the majority will feel that their needs are being watered down. I cannot help wondering, in view of all the discussions
1654
and letters that I have had, whether enough preparatory work to see if it was not possible to reach agreement between the different professions was done before the Bill was ever introduced.
I feel sure from looking at the list of speakers this evening that other noble Lords and Baronesses will refer in particular to the question of the health visitors. I have considerable sympathy with their fears that, as the smallest profession, they will lose out in the new arrangements and that their particular needs in education will not be catered for. That is something to which we shall certainly return in Committee. I was, therefore, particularly glad to note what the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said on that very point and may I say that, if it is possible to reach an agreement between all the professions, we on this side of the House would be very glad to support it. My understanding at present is that there is no agreement and I think that that is something to which we need to turn our attention during the Committee stage.
I believe that there is a more general criticism. As I understand it, the Bill was originally based on the report of the noble Lord, Lord Briggs. Of course, we greatly look forward to hearing what he has to say. However, having read his very interesting report, the essence of it is really education, manpower in the nursing professions, the career structure for nurses as well as the conditions of work for the nursing professions. The actual statutory framework is, in fact, the smallest part of the report. I would suggest that this Bill can only be a beginning.
Therefore, it is disappointing that, as the Financial Memorandum makes clear, there cannot be any changes in education and training in the nursing professions until more funds are available nationally. In that way, those bodies that were so keen to see this Bill on the Statute Book may well be disappointed. I should not like to be taking part in yet another Bill on which we all labour and which we all think is, in principle, a good Bill, but find at the end of the day that because there is no money to support it, the Bill is in fact a dead letter.
As recently as 10 days ago we debated the International Year of the Child. It

1655
is, indeed, most disappointing that four years on we have still not been able fully to implement the Children Act 1975 because funds have not been available. I make this point now because nothing brings Parliament into disrepute more than passing legislation for which there is not adequate money, because hopes are raised which, in fact, are not fulfilled.
Under this Bill we have the structure, the framework, as the Briggs Report makes out, but we are without the money to carry out its purpose. Without wishing to be in any way unfair, we have a Bill which does nothing about education and training and nothing about conditions of work. It is a Bill that will not produce more nurses or midwives or health visitors.
At no point in the Bill are the interests of consumers—or should we in this case say patients—mentioned at all, except in Clause 4(1), where I assume that the two members of the midwifery committee who are to be members of the public are representing patients' interests. If in fact that is not the case, I should be glad if the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, would say so. But if it is the case, I should like to ask two questions.
If it is thought desirable to have patients' interests represented on this committee, why are they not represented on every committee? Secondly, how will these two representatives be chosen? Will they come from organisations representing patients' interests? Will they come from among women who have had their babies brought into the world by midwives? How will they be chosen? Again, this is a matter to which we can return at the Committee stage.
Another cause for concern arises under Clause 12. It has been expressed to me by the Royal College of Midwives. This is a matter to which others may well refer in the course of the debate. I believe that there is a fear on the part of midwives—and it should be an equal fear on the part of nurses and health visitors—about what will happen if mistakes are made by one of them as a consequence of an industrial dispute when they are short-staffed, short-handed or having to work long hours. I understand that midwives have a "no strike"
1656
agreement. Therefore, they are put at risk by strike actions on the part of others. Under Clause 12, what happens to them if they make a mistake?
Furthermore, it is just worth considering whether, should one of the members of these professions be brought before the disciplinary committee, it is right that the proceedings should be heard in public. It has been said to me—and there seems to be some force in the argument—that when members of other professions are brought before their disciplinary committees, the proceedings are not held in public. I can understand the arguments for holding the proceedings in public, but, on the other hand, from the point of view of the person who is accused, there is always the danger that, at the end of the day when they are proved to be not guilty but completely innocent, someone will say, "There's no smoke without a fire", and their professional reputation will inevitably be damaged by prejudiced people. I think that this is a point one should look at in the course of our Committee proceedings.
The Bill gives enormous powers to the Secretary of State. Initially, he will appoint the chairman of the Council itself. He will constitute the standing committees of the council, and the midwifery and finance committees. He has further powers under Clauses 7, 8 and 10, and under these he will constitute by order the committees of the boards and the joint committees serving both the councils and the boards. All this would appear to be an enormously weighty structure.
As I understand the situation, those in the nursing profession who were most keen to have this Bill, as they wanted action on the report of the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, may well prove to be disappointed. It is, after all, six years since the publication of that report, and now, inevitably, they are not getting a Bill which deals with the substance of that report but only with its framework. It is a structure without any provision for the real bones of the report that support the structure.
Before concluding, may I raise one other concern of my own. It does not arise directly from the Bill, although the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, in intro-

1657
ducing the Bill commented at length about the proposals on education: that is, the proposal that there should be one basic 18-month course for all three professions. This may well be right. But does it mean that we are about to establish a new figure—the generic nurse? The concept of the generic social worker has in fact been a disaster in the social work world, and I very much hope that we shall not repeat it in the nursing world. I myself am a believer in specialisation, for we live in a specialist world, and I would not wish to see expertise neglected or denigrated. I am of course pleased to read Clause 3(3), which makes provision for consultation with the specialisms within nursing. However, I note that it is not a mandatory consultation as in subsection (1) but is permissive. Above all, let us learn the lessons of the reforms which led to social service committees and the training of social workers, and, where there have been mistakes, let us not repeat them in the nursing profession.
This is a Bill that we shall want thoroughly to examine in Committee. I cannot pretend that it is one that we on this side of the House are particularly enthusiastic about, and I certainly cannot accept that it is at present a non-controversial measure. One of the many advantages of your Lordships' House is that we have time fully to consider all the many problems that still arise upon it. We on this side of the House shall not oppose it at Second Reading, but we shall want time thoroughly to examine it as it proceeds through your Lordships' House.
9.33 p.m.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: My Lords, may I join the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for his introduction of the Bill in front of us. I shall be short in my remarks because, like all noble Lords present in the House at the moment, I am looking forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, and his understanding of the Bill and his views on the changed situation that now exists in a unified National Health Service since his report was originally published.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said that this Bill is about organisation and structure. He expressed the view
1658
that the fears of the various sections of the profession that have been voiced are perhaps unnecessary fears when it comes to this Bill; that they are fears of a changing educational and training pattern and not exactly fears of the organisation itself. I believe there is a bit of both in the problems that the Bill has come up against. I personally welcome the Bill in the way that it sets out a framework for establishing a central council and national boards. It will obviate much of the fragmentation that has taken place in the past and I believe it will help some of the funding arrangements as they presently stand.
This fragmentation in nurse and midwife training and education, it is not realised, has created enormous problems for nurse managers and educationists in the Health Service over the years, and for that reason I welcome the establishment of a proper structure for the profession. However, like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I regret that there is no money available for implementing a real restructuring of the education of nurses, midwives and health visitors in the Health Service.
The Bill has had several Amendments made to it in another place and we should pay tribute to what has been done there. To a great extent the Bill has been improved, but some points still worry me. As has been said that it is difficult to get the various arms of the professions to meet, and I was therefore greatly reassured when the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said that if agreement could be obtained from the three arms of the Service he would introduce the relevant provision either in Committee or on Report. We on this side of the House will be happy to support it. An example of what happens in the desire to safeguard their position may be mentioned here in relation to Amendments being made to the Bill in another place. Noble Lords will remember that an Amendment was introduced in Committee to enable the midwifery committees of the national board to communicate direct with the midwifery committee of the national council. That was, to me, a dangerous move because it could take away from the statutory board its proper relationship with its subordinate committees, and I was therefore concerned about that. Later, on Report, that position was reversed, and now I believe the structure is better. Nevertheless, the

1659
midwives are concerned about their voice being properly heard through their national boards, and they have put it to me that they would like something put in the Bill to obligate the national boards to forward the views of the national midwifery committees. I do not know whether that is possible, but it is something we in this House should consider.
The other problem that worries me is that to which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred; namely the Amendment introduced to the effect that there shall be two members of the general public, at least one of whom must be a woman, on the midwifery committee. As a woman, I am absolutely against the "statutory woman". I do not believe it is correct that we should always be harping about one person being a woman. Other noble Lords will speak about the composition and membership of these committee sand I agree it is desperately important that members of the medical profession should be on these committees, but I do not think it is necessary for there to be a woman as such representing the consumer. This provision has crept in because people have misunderstood the purpose of the midwifery committee. They feel that it governs, for instance, the provisions of facilities for home confinement; it does not. I personally should prefer not to see the statutory woman as such on the midwifery committee.
Like all of us in the House, I am fully aware of the difficult position in which the health visitors find themselves, being by far the smallest body, and anything that we can do to reassure them that under the new structure their case will be heard will be welcome. Another point that concerns me about the debate as it took place in the other House is that it seems that we are going too far in many ways in establishing committees at the national board level. We have agreed that there are certain committees that must be set up at central council level, but I am concerned about what appears to be the desire to set up statutory committees at national board level, because the national boards must vary, depending on the structure as it is at the moment. In Northern Ireland, for instance, there is currently a joint statutory body, and specialist separate committees are not wanted. The national boards should be left with freedom to set up the
1660
committees that they themselves consider necessary in the particular context of the country in which they function. I believe this to be desperately important.
I also want to refer to the disciplinary action. Here again, I am afraid that I am very much on the same lines as the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I am tremendously concerned about what happens to midwives, nurses or health visitors (who will also come under the umbrella by the time they are part of the statutory body) if, through no fault of their own, they make a mistake because there is a shortage of staff due to industrial action. Perhaps this is such a big subject that it cannot be dealt with only under the Bill. It is a problem which, in our present industrial situation, exists in many walks of life; but in this particular case, because there is a disciplinary committee set up under the central council, these people will be very vulnerable. I believe that we would do well in this House to devote quite a bit of our time to seeing that they are safeguarded, as they are among those who have agreed not to take industrial action because they are interested in the life of the patient. I hope that we shall be able to spend some time discussing that point in Committee.
9.44 p.m.
Lord BRIGGS: My Lords, may I crave the indulgence of your Lordships for talking at this stage in the discussion of a Bill which to me has a very long pre-history. It was on a grey afternoon in December 1969 that the then Secretary of State asked me, as a matter of urgency, whether I would chair a committee to look into the role of the nurse, the education, training, and conditions of work of nurses, and the most effective use in the future of manpower within an integrated National Health Service. When I accepted the invitation to chair the committee I did so because I believed that there was an urgent need for action. The committee was duly appointed in March, 1970, and we completed our report within the time which was scheduled for us, by the summer of 1972. Those of us who were concerned with the committee and who felt the sense of urgency at that time have since been most disappointed at the very slow rate of progress in dealing with what seemed to us at the time, and what still seems to me at this time, to be urgent matters.

1661
There are in fact six aspects of the report which still seem to me to retain their basic importance. First, there was the attempt to set out clearer rules and understandings about recruitment into the nursing profession. Conditions of recruitment vary very much from one place to another. It seemed to us at the time that all kinds of obstacles were being placed in the way of nurse recruitment, and we attached the utmost importance to the whole of that range of issues. Secondly, we looked at the nature of the training and educational system in relation to nursing, and we noted again that there was in fact no system. There was a great variety of different forms of education, some very good, some not at all good; and we attached a great deal of importance to an urgent action programme to increase and improve the supply of nurse tutors. That was one of the most important points in the educational proposals.
But, my Lords, we also envisaged the nursing profession in terms of continuing nurse education to develop the best opportunities for each individual nurse and to give the nurse within the profession choice of the various kinds of specialisation which the nurse in question could most effectively develop. There was no suggestion whatsoever—I say this in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Young—of a generic nurse. We believed that it was essential to give the right kind of basic nursing education, so that the specialised forms of nursing education could be developed on the basis of that initial education. We also wanted some of the ideas which were at work in the educational world as a whole about methods of learning to be taken into the nursing profession.
The third point in the report was a study of the conditions of work. We felt, as indeed I still feel, that the conditions of work in relation to the nursing profession required, and continue to require, regular scrutiny. When we consider the difficulties that the National Health Service has faced during the course of these last few weeks or months, I yield to none in my admiration for the work of nurses at this difficult time—and they are working in extremely difficult conditions. In our report we tried to lay down some of what seemed to us to be the essential conditions if one was going to have a nursing pro-
1662
fession consisting, not only of people who cared but of people who were cared for by the community.
Fourthly, in the report we attached a great deal of importance to community nursing. At the beginning of the day, when the report was being discussed, I regretted that some suspicion was then expressed by health visitors about features of the report. It was the only suspicion, I think, which was registered at that particular time. There were midwives on my committee, and they played a most important part. I heard no suspicions registered by midwives at that particular stage in the story, but there were some suspicions which were expressed by health visitors. I did my best at the time to allay them, because if one bothers to read the report with care one finds that it lays a tremendous amount of importance on community care, on primary care, on trying to ensure that everyone within the nursing profession who is concerned with hospitals understands the relationship between hospital care and community care. It was that notion of integration, the integration between community care and hospital care, which seemed to me to be the point to bring out in our report.
The next point in the report was an emphasis upon the need for continuing research to identify nursing needs, and an attempt to ensure that these would be met with the proper degrees of priority within the National Health Service. Lastly, we emphasised the importance of a unified profession and of the development of what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, called a framework which would enable that unified profession itself to make some of the key decisions about the future of nursing.
My Lords, in all the work I have done in my life I have never found any committee more rewarding than the nursing committee which was composed of a majority of nurses. The ideas which were discussed in that committee were ideas which had been discussed for years previously within the nursing profession. They were not new ideas. What the report did was to try to bring the ideas together and put them in some kind of logical, coherent form and to take account of the relationship between nurses and the medical profession, a key relationship;

1663
but to take account also of the relationship between the nurses and paramedicals and the ancillaries in the National Health Service. The importance of those groups has grown considerably since the report was published.
My committee had a very broad remit, but the measure which we are considering is, as my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell has said, a modest Bill. It deals entirely with machinery; and to those who like me are concerned with objectives there is an element of disappointment in this. Machinery, however important, is merely instrumental. A great deal depends not only on the structures which have been devised but on the goodwill which is applied to the application of the structures when they come into existence.
I welcome very much the notion of a common council which will deal with the problems of the nursing profession as a whole. I believe that the creation of such a council is in the interests of the nursing profession and that it will give the profession a chance to work out its own destiny more effectively than it has ever been able to do in the past. I welcome very much the possibility of further discussions, as my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell has said, between the health visitors, who remain deeply concerned about aspects of the measure, and the nursing profession. I sincerely hope that those discussions will be fruitful.
In my view, it would be a tragedy if we were to fail to make progress after 10 years in this field because we cannot at the moment get the feeling that behind the necessary measures we have a united profession. I can understand the reasons for some of the worries. I hope that at the Committee stage it will be possible to hammer out some of the problems. I agree with noble Lords who have spoken that there are aspects of some of the Amendments which I do not like. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to discuss these very fully indeed at a later stage. But if it were possible for agreement to be reached between the health visitors and the nursing profession as a whole before that stage it would be a great encouragement to us all.
My Lords, in conclusion, may I say that while I regard machinery as being instrumental—and the sections on the
1664
framework in the report are, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said, brief in relation to the content of the report—nevertheless the framework is important and it is essential that we get it right. I hope that it will be possible for an atmosphere of trust to be built up if we are going to make the new machinery work right from the start. But unless we make a start with the machinery, we will never be able to get any further in relation to securing the objects which, I think, are shared by most people in the nursing profession.
Those objects are objects which are all bound up with the ideas which are set out in the report. Times have changed; there is a different social situation and a different situation in the National Health Service itself as compared with 1972. Yet that report was seeking to look to the future of nursing towards the end of this century. If one misses an opportunity in relation to the future of a profession for whatever reasons, it may be very difficult indeed to find another moment when it will be possible to have the same opportunity.
9.55 p.m.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, it is a great pleasure for me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, on his maiden speech. It must really be wonderful to be able to make a maiden speech which carries with it such knowledge and concern for the service in which the noble Lord has been so interested, so far as I know, all his life. Today our House is very lucky to have had a maiden speech from the noble Lord on this subject. Making maiden speeches is always a problem and always rather difficult. I do not think that we often get a maiden speech on a topic which over the years we have all learned to acknowledge, covering aspects which we try to put into operation. We know how able the noble Lord is and how much study he has given to the profession which he more than adequately, and indeed wonderfully, represents. In congratulating him we know that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, who moved the Second Reading, will be able to get in touch with the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, and gain the benefit of his experience and knowledge. We have been delighted to have been here tonight to hear the maiden speech of

1665
Lord Briggs and we sincerely hope that he will often attend this House and contribute on a matter about which we are all, whatever our Party, very anxious. I should like to thank the noble Lord very much indeed and I am delighted to have had the honour of congratulating him on a wonderful maiden speech.
May I now turn to one or two points that I should like to make, having listened with very great interest and respect to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. For many years now I have been a vice-president of the Royal College of Nursing. I have always enjoyed this very much indeed and it has helped me to do the very little that I have been able to do for the nursing profession. I am very pleased with the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, this evening. It starts us off on something quite new which ought to be of great benefit to the nursing profession, the midwives and the health visitors.
I was not quite so pleased with the speech made by my noble friend Lady Young. I do not know how much knowledge she has of the nursing profession and how it works; but I know from the Royal College of Nursing that, as they have already indicated to me, they want one small amendment to be made to the Bill. They have forwarded this amendment to me and when we come to discuss the Bill in Committee I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will be able to accept it. That indicates to me that, although there is a lot of worries, I understand, among certain sections which are covered by this Bill, there are not quite so many worries as my noble friend Lady Young seeks to point out.
There is one point in particular I should like to make because, as I say, the Royal College of Nursing has played a very important part in the nursing profession and I have always been very proud to be associated with them. I should like to read to your Lordships a passage from a letter I have received from Mr. D. H. Rye, Director of Professional Activities in the Royal College of Nursing. I think this will indicate to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, the feeling of the Royal College:
"I would just make one point: that the Royal College of Nursing sees this"—
1666
that is, the new Bill we are now discussing—
"as enabling the creation of a new statutory framework to develop the training and education of the nurses, midwives and health visitors, and it must be seen as a means to an end, not as an end in itself. Much more work will have to be done by the new statutory body to implement the educational recommendations made in the report of the Briggs Committee. I hope that this information will be sufficient for your purposes".
That is really a very important letter I have from the Royal College of Nursing. Of course, a lot of people may not necessarily support the Royal College of Nursing. We in this country like all sorts of things that we do not always support in detail, but the Royal College of Nursing has done an immense amount in helping the nurses, the midwives and the health visitors. Therefore, I was very pleased to get this note from Mr. Rye. As he says, the Bill enables the creation of a new statutory framework to develop the training of nurses, midwives and health visitors and it is something that "must be seen as a means to an end, not as an end in itself".
When we come to the Committee stage of the Bill I think that everybody will be able to make a contribution from their own knowledge. That is tremendously important; I am a great believer in experience. I sometimes think that the nursing profession, with the midwives and the health visitors, have never really had all the support and help they needed from either Government—going back a long way. Here is a new opportunity and I shall look forward to the Committee stage. At the same time, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for thinking out this new idea which he has put forward in this Bill today. I am sure he will be wanting to congratulate my noble friend on his maiden speech: it was a wonderful speech that he made. Of course, if there are certain points I do not agree with, when the Committee stage comes along I shall try to make him alter his mind. But, in the meantime, it is quite right that he should be congratulated on coming forward with this great scheme, which I hope will do all that he hopes for those people we want to serve, and serve well.
I shall not take up any more of your Lordships' time but I should just like to say again, "Thank you for the Bill". I think it was wonderfully developed and

1667
I hope that my Party, together with the Liberal Party, will be able to do whatever is possible to make absolutely certain that everybody benefits from this proposal. I think it is a very good one and I again congratulate the noble Lord on bringing forward this Bill.
I have nothing further to say, except that I have always been proud of the nursing profession, and of the midwives and health visitors, as have we all. We
1668
have a wonderful number of them in this country, and when we are discussing what I call the political terms of this Bill we also have to remember what they would like and what will help them. So I am delighted to be here tonight and to pay my tribute. I hope that the Bill which the noble Lord has introduced, and which is supported by so many people in the country, will have a profound effect upon our services to nurses, to midwives and to health visitors. So thank you very much indeed.
10.6 p.m.
Lord SMITH: My Lords, may I first be allowed to apologise to the House for the fact that, due to the arrival in London this evening of a distinguished American surgeon, long arranged, for whom I have some responsibilities, I shall not be able to stay, as I should like, to the end of the debate. I should also like to say how very much I enjoyed the most elegant and informative maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Briggs. I am sure that we have all benefited greatly from hearing his description of the history behind the report of his committee.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has said, behind the Bill lies the setting and the maintaining of standards. How good it is to be able to support the pursuit of excellence at a time when it is so widely assumed that in health matters the only moral objective is equality! As has already been said, there are certain anxieties that were aroused by the report of the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Briggs; but of course these anxieties do not stem from the Bill itself, and whether they turn out to be justified will be dependent on the way in which these new bodies do their jobs. That, in turn, will depend to a certain degree upon their constitution, and it is about one aspect of the constitution that I want to speak very briefly this evening.
In regard to the constitution of both the central council and the national boards, there is one anxiety that I have. As a consultant in a large hospital, I have myself taken part in teaching nurses for over 30 years in the lecture room, in the operating theatre and at the bedside. Indeed, I have always regarded it as a duty of doctors in hospital to assist directly in training nurses, but also, at times, to give advice as to how the curriculum might best contribute to the total care of the sick. As the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, has said, this is a key relationship of the two professions.
It seemed to me that this was so self-evident that, when I received the text of this Bill, I looked to see how it was suggested that the help of doctors could be used to best advantage on these important bodies, the council and the boards in particular. It was with some surprise that I saw that the statutory
1670
representation of the medical profession was to be nil, and that, as has already been mentioned this evening, an Amendment had been passed in another place which, by Statute, put two members of the general public on to the midwifery committee, but not, by Statute, an obstetrician. The Secretary of State has the power, if he should so wish—and I am sure that he will—to use the services of doctors on these bodies. Indeed, it is stated that the Secretary of State's appointments:
"shall be made from among persons who are either nurses, midwives or health visitors or have such qualifications and experience in education, medicine or other fields as in the Secretary of State's opinion will be of value to the Council in the performance of its functions".
The same is true of the boards. However, the power to include must imply the power not to include.
Although the present Secretary of State may very well feel just as convinced as I am of the necessity to have the proper amount of advice and help from the medical profession, I think it is reasonable to ask whether this Bill should leave it to the discretion of all future Secretaries of State to decide whether or not there shall be any medical representation upon these important bodies.
I am quite sure that no doctors would want to make a kind of take-over bid to look after the affairs of the nursing and other professions, but surely all doctors will want the objectives of this Bill to succeed. They will want the work of the council and of the boards to succeed. They will also want the traditional help which the medical profession has always given in the training of nurses to continue.
Surely the nursing of patients cannot be organised in isolation but only as a part of total medical care. By adding a few words, this House can amend the Bill so that adequate medical representation is provided for by Statute. I hope very much indeed that, when the time comes, the House will decide to do so.
10.13 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, it is rather embarrassing to have to speak after two such distinguished contributors to our debate. I should like to add my

1671
congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, on his maiden speech. May I also say that we are very glad to hear again the noble Lord, Lord Smith, who made his maiden speech only a short while ago. I am sure that he will be very helpful on this Bill.
As their vice-president, I must declare my interest in health visitors. I noticed with interest that the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, was a little worried about their future. As he will know, since 1962 the training of health visitors has been of a special type. Furthermore, the same kind of training is given in every part of the United Kingdom. Consequently, health visitors are a little in advance of certain other professions. They have to be able to assess the health and the health needs of people, provide information on health matters and give such service to families and individuals as they may need. I think that it will be agreed that this is rather different from the training that is given to nurses.
It appears that general nursing courses do not emphasise the importance of communication with patients and others, nor do they emphasise the knowledge of social and emotional factors which affect health and illness. Such knowledge and skills, I suggest, are becoming increasingly important, in view of the following changes: the change in the pattern of disease from short-term acute to long-term, chronic and handicapping conditions; the emphasis on the promotion of health and preventive medicine as well as curative medicine, with the need for public knowledge and involvement if health habits are to be changed—and health habits still need to be changed—and also the increasing awareness of emotional and psychological factors in illness. The Court Report paid particular tribute to the health visitors and the committee thought there should be a distinct group of these nurses. At one time it suggested that they might just be called "health nurses". The Snowdon Committee also reported how helpful they were with the disabled, and the Hearing Impaired Persons Committee also recommended that they keep their same standards. Then there was the Select Committee on Violence in the Family in 1976–77, which underlined the need for health visitors because of their special training.
1672
Those important reports seem to support the fact that the health visitors should have a better role under this Bill. We expect to have an increase in the number of elderly people in the population and we are all agreed that there should be more care in the community instead of people going into institutions. Like others, health visitors are aware that improvements are needed, but they feel that what is contained in this Bill at the moment will not satisfy their wants.
The United Kingdom National Standing Conference of Health Visitor Tutors is—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, would understand this, too—understandably anxious that whatever educational standards have been achieved at the present time should be safeguarded and their anxiety arises because, while there are other post-basic nursing training specialisms, only health visiting, together with midwifery, has existing statutory autonomy and a well-developed educational syllabus. Health visiting has evolved a different pattern of education, better fitted to its work in the community, as the different scope requires different methods. What the health visitors consider to be the danger is a fragmenting of the existing United Kingdom education—as I mentioned previously they have the same syllabus throughout the United Kingdom—and they feel there is a danger that health education may become less uniform throughout the United Kingdom than it is at present. This would be ironic since the Bill is supposed to ensure United Kingdom uniformity for nurse education. Health visiting is the only existing training that is uniform throughout the United Kingdom. Of all the professions, this is the only one that has this training; it does not apply to the nursing or midwifery.
The health visitors consider that the danger also arises because the national boards will have the function of initiating and approving courses and institutions and holding qualifying examinations. They will have to ensure that the courses meet the central council requirements as to content and standard. This would appear to ensure United Kingdom uniformity. However, this depends on the relative powers as between the central council and the national boards. Prior to this Bill, the stated intention was to give the finance for the nursing education directly

1673
to the national boards, but Mr. Moyle, the Minister in the other place, referred during the Committee stage to the central council as the co-ordinating body, though, despite his subsequent points about the quality of leadership required for successful coordination, it is far from clear that the central council will be the authority and the power in practice.
Given the inbuilt majority on the central council and the national boards of those whose experience has been of basic nursing training or training in hospital nursing only, there is a danger that this will be seen as the only pattern. That is one of the fears of the health visitors. Basic nursing training and much of other post-basic nursing education has always taken place in schools of nursing, away from the mainstream of general further education, although I think there are exceptions within the basic nursing training—there have been schemes which involved state registration and district nursing or health visiting which have been established in some educational establishments.
In many cases health visitor courses have pioneered the way for nursing courses in further education. There is a danger that health visiting education, which is the only one totally within further and higher education, may be removed and taken into colleges of nursing, which as monotechnic institutions would not be able to provide the depth of education needed. I think this would be a retrograde step for health visitor education and for prospects of a nurse's education more suited than the present one to future needs.
Health visitors are a very small group compared to the hospital nurses, and they fear that they will be outvoted unless they are given a major say at least in organising their own very different form of education and training. This fear has been amply justified by experience gained while the co-ordinating committee was meeting, when the council's representatives made the following points. They said an alternative plan for federation should be examined, and this is in line with the council's original response to the Briggs report. Before such radical changes take place, a feasibility study should be undertaken. A White Paper should have been issued for all interested parties to see in
1674
advance of the Bill, and this regrettably did not happen. The council made it clear in February 1978, and repeated in November 1978, that it could not support proposals for this legislation as they stood.
Whether this is accurate or not I do not know, but I have been told that in the case of points put forward by this minority group every one has been overruled. So I hope that if this Bill becomes law the health visitors will be conceded more than any other group in the interests of the whole. It is the responsibility of this council, and surely no more than common justice, to ensure proper provision for the future health visitor's education and training. So I shall be submitting to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, some Amendments which I hope may do away with the fears of the health visitors, which he will perhaps be able to accept. In any case, he has been gracious enough to say that he was looking forward to discussing this Bill thoroughly, and I hope it will turn out satisfactorily in the end.
10.22 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, it is late and I do not intend to keep your Lordships very long. I must say that it is unfortunate—and I am sure this is not the fault of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, who is as enthusiastic about this subject as anyone in your Lordships' House—that this Bill has been put on so late in the day. This is one of the most important subjects we could discuss. I am sure both noble Lords opposite feel the same. It is unfortunate that we should be speaking to totally empty Benches when we have just had the most marvellous maiden speech from Lord Briggs. This report has been in the hands of Governments—not only this one, but others—since 1972, and this debate should have been a great occasion upon which we should have been able to get everybody to join in. I know that time is a difficulty, but it is a pity that we could not have had this debate when more Members of your Lordships' House were here to listen, anyway, if to nobody else, to the noble Lord, Lord Briggs.
I yield to no one in my enthusiasm for this profession. Like the noble Baroness,

1675
Lady Ward, I am also a vice-president of the Royal College of Nursing; and having been married to a doctor, I know what the nursing profession means in the life of professionals. I would like to support the noble Lord, Lord Smith, in his suggestion that some of the medical profession should at least be involved in the setting up of these new committees. I hope very much that these committees will be a success; but I have had a lot of experience recently of reorganisation and I have become a little sceptical about it.
I was involved in reorganisation of local government, and I cannot honestly say I think our efforts, although they were quite genuine, have been as successful as some of us thought they would be. I feel a little nervous when people talk about reorganisation rather than about putting in a new framework, or of sticking to the old framework and simply having some small alterations. Local government was certainly one example; so also, to some extent, was the Health Service, although again no one Party was responsible for that. My Party was as responsible as anyone else. I cannot say that I think that all the reorganisation of the Health Service has been as successful as we anticipated. I do not want to be a Jonah and say that no reorganisation is a success, because I hope that this reorganisation will be successful. However, I am a little sceptical because I have seen so much reorganisation that has not resulted in improvement.
If the Bill follows—as I believe it does—some of the recommendations of the Briggs Report, then I feel sure that we shall be able to carry out some of these provisions. I wish that, instead of just reorganisation, it had been possible to adopt some of the proposals of the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, which have been waiting some eight years to be implemented. There are other matters, besides just setting up committees, which are of great importance in the report.
The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, has spoken about health visitors. I too have had letters from, and have met, members of that admirable part of the nursing profession and I hope that we shall be able to do something to help them. I also would support the district
1676
nurses because they too have a great part to play. Although they may be included under the Royal College of Nursing umbrella, as indeed are almost all nurses, I should like the district nurses also to have a status and standard in the set-up because they do a wonderful job in the community. I had planned to say something about health visitors, but the noble Baroness has said it all and therefore I shall leave them. However, I make it clear that I support all that she has said and I think that they are of very great importance.
It has been suggested in one of the meetings that we had with different groups that it would have been a great help if, say a year ago, before the Bill was brought out and discussed in another place, we had had a White Paper. This could have been discussed by all the interests in the profession before the Bill was founded. I do not know whether that was suggested by any of the Governments concerned—after all, there have been several Governments since the Briggs Report was inaugurated—but it certainly would have been a help. I understand that it was quite difficult for some of the groups to get in touch with the Department as regards the planning of the Bill and it would have been good if there had been a little more consideration. In most Acts of Parliament of this kind one has a Green or a White Paper put forward and discussed by all the interests. This is brought in before the introduction of the Bill and thus there is a better background from which to work. Perhaps that was not possible but it is a pity that it was not done.
I hope that we shall have—and here I appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, and to the Deputy Chief Whip—a good deal of time to discuss the matter in Committee. Today we have had a very late debate. There are very few people present but some admirable speeches have been made, all of which could with great benefit have been heard by a larger audience. I hope that when the plans for the Committee and Report stages are made the Government will ensure that there is more time and that a more propitious hour than half-past ten at night will be set aside to discuss this matter. In the meantime, I have listened with great interest to what has been said

1677
and I shall do my best from these Benches to help in any way I can to improve the Bill.
10.30 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am sure that it is the wish of your Lordships that I should not keep you too long. However, there are a number of points which have been raised tonight by noble Lords and which I must try to deal with rather briefly. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, drew attention to the fact that here was yet another Bill for the implementation of which there would not be any money. The noble Baroness really must look at the paragraph headed "Financial Effects of the Bill" in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. That says very clearly that:
"In any case it is unlikely that the new bodies would be in a position to recommend changes before 1982/3 at the earliest. There will be some additional cost during the handover period … before the new bodies take on the functions of the old. It is proposed to adjust existing programmes to accommodate this particular item of expenditure."
I accept that money will not be available—unless, of course, authority is given for it—to effect any changes in the training programme. But this is not primarily a training Bill, but one which seeks to bring about a certain number of organisational changes. With great respect, I do not think that there is any real validity in the argument that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has put forward.
The noble Baroness also drew attention to the question of misconduct and said how unfair it would be if a nurse, a midwife or a health visitor was charged with misconduct when it was someone else's fault or due to some series of happenings which prevented the person from carrying out his or her responsibilities properly. Nobody can be charged with misconduct and found guilty of misconduct if it can be established beyond all reasonable doubt that it was due to the fault or the intervention of someone else.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: My Lords, with all due respect, it could be due to exhaustion or tiredness. That is a very difficult thing to prove.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am not so sure that it would be difficult
1678
to prove. Over a good many years there are any number of members of the medical profession who have appeared before disciplinary boards and have been accused of some quite serious offences. But they have been acquitted because there has been proof to the contrary. This is very much a red herring and it is a great pity that we should suggest that the Bill as at present worded will give rise to serious miscarriages of justice. There is no justification for implying that sort of thing.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord on that? I am sure that it was not the intention of my noble friend Lady Young to suggest that. She was suggesting something rather different—namely, that proceedings should take place in private. She did not make particular reference to this, but we shall make reference to it again later: further proceedings will be much more in line with those of the General Medical Council Act.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if the noble Lord had contained his soul in patience for a little longer, I should have got round to dealing with that. The noble Baroness referred to Clause 12. That clause restates existing legislation. The problem of industrial action needs to be looked into in the wider context and also as to its effect upon the professions. The noble Baroness raised the point about hearings in public. Clause 12(4), which deals with this, is a parallel provision to the provisions in the Medical Act. If it had not been, there would have been criticisms because we were adopting an entirely different kind of procedure.
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I shall not give way any more. This is the last time I propose to give way.
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, this is quite an important point. If I understand the Minister aright, he is suggesting that the nurses should go through the sort of experience that the doctors go through when the disciplinary committee of the General Medical Council is dealing with complaints against them.

1679
May I ask him to bear in mind that many of the complaints that may be made against nurses may be suggesting incompetence, carelessness, the wrong sort of attitude, and that these things heard in public, even though the result may be an acquittal, can have a detrimental effect on the nurses' future career? Therefore, what the noble Baroness was saying is something of great substance.
Other professions have disciplinary procedures, but they have their disciplinary hearing in private. The most you ever read is about a barrister being suspended for six months; you do not hear the details of the charge brought against him. It is only in the medical profession that you get that sort of detail. I take it that what the noble Baroness was suggesting was that we should not subject nurses to the sort of treatment to which doctors are now subjected. I cannot understand why my noble friend will not accept this and take it on board.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, all I want to say on that point is that I think we have to look at what is the legal meaning of misconduct. It is something that is basically serious, and very serious. I do not think for one moment that the instances which my noble friend Lord Pitt has given would in point of fact amount to misconduct. The noble Baronesses, Lady Young, Lady Vickers and Lady Elliot, suggested that there had been an element of undue haste in bringing this Bill before Parliament. It was suggested that there had not been enough consultation. It was suggested that some of the people involved in this whole matter had not really been consulted. It was even suggested that there should be a White Paper. But let us look at the facts. There has been extensive consultation ever since the Briggs Report was published. For some years there has been consultation between the various groups that we are talking about and everybody involved. There was a Briggs Co-ordinating Committee which, to the best of my knowledge, was set up in 1977 to help in the preparation of legislation, and the proposals which are before your Lordships tonight in the Bill were considered.
I think it is right to say that representatives of all the statutory and non-
1680
statutory bodies were represented: the Royal College of Nurses; the Royal College of Midwives; the health visitors; the unions, NUPE, COHSE, NALGO, and the Association of Nurse Administrators, and representatives from the professions in Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. I think it would have been extremely difficult to get a more comprehensive group of people together to discuss this matter. I should have said that the Briggs Co-ordinating Committee more than discharged its responsibility in consulting over the widest possible field all the interests reflected in this Bill.
There was a comment about the general public. The Amendments to provide for members of the general public on the midwifery committee were introduced in another place by the Opposition. The Government did not like it, and had there been time I would have been only too pleased to give the Government's reason for it, but this was something that was imposed.
The noble Lord, Lord Smith, raised the question of medical membership of the various committees. My understanding is that the Bill provides for medical membership on the council and boards, but the detailed membership will be prescribed by order; that is, it will be enshrined in a Statutory Instrument. It has been accepted that medical representation on the council, boards and their committees should happen; but, as I say, the details will have to wait until discussions have taken place and the various orders setting up the new bodies are prepared, but that has been conceded all along.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, referred to district nurses, and I apologise if I misunderstood her on this. The Minister of State gave an undertaking in another place to use the powers in Clause 8 to establish a district nursing joint committee, and that has been welcomed by the district nurses. As I say, we have given that undertaking. In relation to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, there has been some debate on the lines of communication between the council's midwifery committee and those of the national boards. Some midwives want to see direct and formal links between the midwifery committee at each level, with-

1681
out reference to the parent bodies. Though no doubt there will be extensive informal contact between them, the final links must be between the parent bodies if the committees are not to acquire a degree of autonomy which is counter to the basic unifying intent of the Bill.
If the council and boards are to make sensible decisions which affect midwives, they must be aware of the problems facing midwives and understand their unique position and needs. That they cannot do if the midwifery committees are hived off as virtually a separate enterprise. The Bill is drafted so as to allow for maximum consultation between levels, but also to preserve the constitutional niceties of relationships between the parent bodies and their subordinate committees. That is a matter to which a great deal of thought has been given, and I should have thought that this was the best way of serving the midwifery interests.
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part and I have tried to deal with the questions they have raised. I, too, wish to add my personal thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Briggs, for coming here today because he made, as the whole House will agree, a most balanced contribution in which we on the Government side came in for a little criticism, as did noble Lords opposite. We are grateful to him. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ward of North Tyneside, for her contribution. It is a joy for me not to be on the receiving end of what she says; I am the one she is usually taking to task and it is rather nice to see her direct her attentions to Lady Young.
The question of timing was raised. It was a matter of concern to a number of us that this subject came on so late in the day. We had reason to believe that we should have begun two or more hours earlier, but there were, as the noble Baroness will know, four local Bills before the House, and we thought they would take a short time. If she reads tomorrow's Hansard she will see that she will have to take some of the Members of her own Party to task for spending so long on those matters, which should have gone through the House in perhaps one-third of the time. Had they not done so, we should have been home long since.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TAMAR BRIDGE BILL
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.